WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/213 
1 October 2007 
 (07-4125) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 18  
OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION OF THE  
PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ("CHINA") 
 
Questions from the United States to China concerning 
 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
 The following communication, received on 25 Sept ember, is circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States . 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Restrictions on trade in beef 
 
1. China continues to impose bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) related restrictions on 
imports of beef and beef products from the United States.  These restrictions have raised serious 
questions as to whether China is satisfying its oblig ations under the Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) , taking into account the relevant international 
standards governing beef trade.  The World Or ganization for Animal Health (OIE) provides 
guidelines for conditions under which the full range of  beef and beef products are tradeable.  In May 
2007, the OIE classified the Untied States as contro lled risk for BSE.  The OIE Code recognizes that 
trade in beef and beef products and cattle of all ages from a "controlled risk" country is safe, provided 
that certain slaughter and beef processing conditions are met, including the removal of specified risk 
materials (SRMs) in a manner that avoids contamination of meat.   
2. The steps taken by the United States to mitigate BSE risk include:  (a) removal of SRMs;  (b) 
implementation of an appropriate feed ban that has been effectively enforced;  (c) an active 
surveillance program that has exceeded OIE requi rements, and;  (d) thorough epidemiological 
investigations of all BSE cases. 
3. The United States remains concerned that China has not adhered more closely to the science-
based principles contained in the OIE guidelin es when making BSE-related regulatory decisions 
regarding imports of US-origin beef and beef products .  It is the United States’ view that China should 
grant access to the full range of OIE-sanctioned products from the United States, including bone-in 
beef, boneless beef, variety meats, offals, and processed  products based on full review of the scientific 
evidence and in accordance with its WTO obligations .  In July 2006, China’s General Administration 
of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quar antine (AQSIQ) issued Announcement No. 89 (2006), 
Inspection and Quarantine Requirements on Conditional Resumption of Boneless Beef Imports from 
the United States (published on AQSIQ’s website on 31 July 2006), which proposes the importation 
of a very limited scope of US-origin beef and b eef products.  More recently, in May 2007, China 
offered to accept all products from animals under 30 m onths of age.  These offers do not permit the G/SPS/W/213 
Page 2  
 
  importation of the range of beef and beef produc ts deemed tradeable under OIE guidelines for the 
"controlled risk" category for BSE purposes. 
(a) Please explain why China has not taken into account relevant OIE guidelines with 
regard to its treatment of imports of beef  and beef products from the United States. 
(b) Has China performed a risk assessment releva nt to its BSE-related restrictions on 
imports of beef and beef products from th e United States as contemplated by 
Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement?  If so, please explain how the risk assessment supports the measures that China is applying to US-origin beef and beef products.  If 
not, please explain the scientific rationale  behind China’s current restrictions. 
BSE-related restrictions on other products  
 
4. China continues to impose additional BSE-relate d import restrictions on protein-free tallow.  
The OIE’s BSE chapter specifies that protein-free tall ow should be traded regardless of the BSE status 
of the exporting country.  However, China continu es to insist that the United States certify that the 
tallow not be processed from certain SRMs, and that certain tallow processing methods commonly 
used in the United States be prohibited.  Additionall y, China insists that the United States certify that 
materials used to produce tallow were not sourced from farms where a BSE-positive animal has been 
detected.  China’s position is not aligned with OI E guidelines and has effectively blocked imports of 
US-origin protein-free tallow.  The United States has provided China with several quantitative risk 
assessments that demonstrate that any BSE-related risks associated with protein-free tallow are too 
small to calculate. 
(a) Please explain why China has not taken into account relevant OIE guidelines with 
regard to its treatment of imports of US-origin protein-free tallow. 
(b) Has China performed a risk assessment releva nt to its BSE-related restrictions on 
imports of protein-free tallow from the United States as contemplated by Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement?  If so, please explain how the risk assessment supports 
the measures that China is applying to protein-free tallow.  If not, please explain the 
scientific rationale behind China’s current restrictions. 
Pathogen standards  
 
5. The United States is concerned that China conti nues to de-list poultry establishments based on 
a zero-tolerance requirement for certain pat hogens (e.g., salmonella) on raw meat and poultry 
products (see Standardization Administration of China (SAC) National Standard (GB) on Fresh and 
Frozen Poultry Products (GB 16869-2005), effective 1 January 2006).  This policy is inconsistent 
with Codex Alimentarius (Codex) guidelines.  The relevant Codex guidelines, set forth in 
CAC/GL21–1997, Principles for the establishment and application of microbiological criteria for 
foods, Chapter 4.1, provide: 
A microbiological criterion should be established and applied only 
where there is a definite need and where its application is practical.  Such need is demonstrated, for example, by epidemiological evidence that the food under cons ideration may represent a public 
health risk and that a criterion is meaningful for consumer protection, or as the result of a risk assessment.  The criterion should be 
technically attainable by applying Good Manufacturing Practices.  G/SPS/W/213 
 Page 3 
 
 
  6. In the case of pathogens like salmonella, the zero-tolerance requi rement enforced by China on 
imported products is not feasible.  In additi on, the United States is concerned because the zero-
tolerance requirement applicable to imports does not  appear to be enforced against domestic products 
or domestic establishments.  This requirement app ears to be unnecessarily trade restrictive within the 
meaning of Article 5 of the SPS Agreement and rai ses serious national treatment concerns.  China has 
acknowledged the need to revise domestic regulatory controls in this area.  
 7. In its responses during the 2006 Transitional Review Mechanism (TRM) meeting before this 
Committee (see G/SPS/43), China asserted that it has no criteria to require zero pathogens on fresh and frozen poultry products.  However, China’s National Standard on Fresh and Frozen Poultry 
Products (GB 16869-2005), in Chapter 4.6, Tabl e 3, indicates a zero tolerance for salmonella.  
Specifically, the Table indicates that for fresh and frozen poultry products, a tolerance of zero/25 grams is permitted.  Mathematically, this indicates an acceptable level of zero traces of salmonella in 
a 25 gram sample.   
(a) It appears that China is using the Codex standard established for ready-to-eat (RTE) 
products on raw products.  Please clarify China’s view on the applicability of this Codex standard to raw products. 
(b) Does China apply its zero-tolerance requir ement to domestically produced meat and 
poultry products?  If not, please explain how China’s ongoing review of domestic 
regulatory controls will ensure conformity w ith its obligations under Article 2.3 of the 
SPS Agreement. 
(c) What is the scientific basis for China’s policy to require zero traces of salmonella in a 
25 gram sample of fresh or frozen poultry as set forth in GB 16869-2005?  Is this policy supported by a risk assessment?  Please explain. 
(d) Please explain the procedures that China would use if it were to revise a national 
standard such as GB 16869-2005. 
(e) Please explain the de-listment of poultry establishments for the presence of pathogens 
on raw products in light of the fact that the subsequent heat treatment of the raw 
product will mitigate any concerns associated with the detected pathogens. 
Residue standards 
 
8. China has de-listed several United Stat es pork establishments due to a Chinese ban on 
ractopamine, a swine-feed ingredient.  China’s ba n on ractopamine is based on a blanket ban of a 
class of drugs called beta-agonists  The United States  is unaware of any risk assessment conducted by 
China to evaluate the risk of ractopamine either  at the time China banned ractopamine or at any 
subsequent occasion. The US Food and Drug Administ ration approved the use of ractopamine in the 
United States in 1999.  Twenty-four countries in total have approved the use of ractopamine.  
Additionally, Codex Alimentarius has reviewed ractopamine and established a draft standard, based 
on recommendations from the relevant internationa l scientific expert advisory committee (Joint 
FOA/WHO Experts Committee on Food Additives (JECFA ) that will be considered for approval at a 
July 2008 meeting of the Codex Commission. 
(a) Please explain why China has not taken Codex recommendations into account in the 
development of its existing zero-tolerance requirement for residues like ractopamine. 
(b) Has China completed a risk assessment th at documents the scientific basis for 
implementing a ban on ractopamine as contemplated by Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS G/SPS/W/213 
Page 4  
 
  Agreement?  If so, please explain how the risk assessment supports the measures 
China is applying.  If not, please explai n the scientific rationale behind China’s 
current restrictions. 
Avian influenza (AI)  
 9. The United States is concerned about China’s co ntinued actions with regard to incidents of 
low pathogenicity notifiable avian influenza (LPNA I) in the United States and, in particular, the 
recent import suspension for poultry and poultry produc ts originating from the States of Nebraska and 
Virginia.  Currently, China has suspended imports of poultry and poultry products from seven States 
(Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania,  West Virginia, Nebraska, and Virginia) for 
LPNAI.  The United States has an open and transpar ent animal disease reporting system, and a wealth 
of information about animal disease occurrences in th e United States is available via the Internet and 
other sources.  The United States urges China’s regulatory ministries to recognize and distinguish the 
different disease risks associated with incidents of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and 
those of LPNAI before taking actions that can have a negative impact on trade.  As the OIE confirms, 
substantial scientific evidence exists to demonstr ate that LPNAI presents no serious threat to human 
health or animal health. 
(a) Please explain why China has not taken into account relevant OIE guidelines with 
regard to its treatment of imports of poultry and poultry products from the seven States identified above. 
(b) Has China performed a risk assessment rele vant to its import suspension for poultry 
and poultry products originating from the seven States identified above as 
contemplated by Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement?  If so, please explain how this risk assessment supports  the measures that China is applying.   If not, please 
explain the scientific rationale behi nd China’s current restrictions.   
10. China has suspended the importation of heat -treated/cooked poultry and poultry products 
from Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Nebraska, and Virginia for 
LPNAI.  Additionally, China does not allow the trans-shipment of poultry and poultry products (including heat-treated product) through these seven States.  The OIE’s AI chapter clearly states that 
products that have been heat-treated  in a manner to inactivate the virus should not be subject to an AI-
related suspension. 
(a) Please explain why China has not taken into account relevant OIE guidelines with 
regard to its treatment of imports of h eat-treated poultry and poultry products from 
the seven States identified above. 
(b) Has China performed a risk assessment relevant to the extension of its import 
suspension to heat-treated/cooked poultry and poultry products originating from the seven States identified above as contemplated by Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS 
Agreement?  If so, please explain how this risk assessment supports the measures that 
China is applying.  If not, please explai n the scientific rationale behind China’s 
current restrictions. 
(c) Has China conducted a risk assessment relativ e to suspending imports of US-origin 
poultry and poultry products (including heat-treated product) that are trans-shipped through the seven States identified above as contemplated by Articles 2 and 5 of the 
SPS Agreement?  If so, please explain how  this risk assessment supports the 
measures that China is applyi ng.   If not, please explain th e scientific rationale behind 
China’s current restrictions.   G/SPS/W/213 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Varietal restrictions on US apples 
11. China limits imports of US apples to just two varieties, Red and Golden Delicious.  The 
United States has requested that China remove this restriction numerous times since 2000 and has 
provided extensive scientific information supporting th is request.  The United States is concerned that 
China has failed to take this information into accoun t and maintains these varietal restrictions despite 
scientific evidence demonstrating that they are not ju stified.  Further, China has indicated that its 
restrictions on other varieties of US apples are rela ted to concerns about fire blight, which are not 
scientifically based.  The WTO’s Appellate Body has already determined that there is no scientific 
justification for restricting imports of mature, symptomless apple fruit.  China appears to be disregarding the findings of  the Appellate Body regarding both varietal restrictions ( see Japan − 
Agricultural Products II ) and fire blight ( see Japan − Apples ).   
(a) Could China explain the scientific basis for its restrictions on varieties of US apples 
other than Red and Golden Delicious?  H as China conducted a risk assessment that 
demonstrates that there are varietal differ ences in risk or that mature symptomless 
apple fruit poses a risk for transmitting fire blight?  
(b) Please explain how China’s measures are in  compliance with the findings of the 
Appellate Body on varietal restrictions and fire blight. 
Lack of regulatory transparency 
 
12. The United States remains concerned about th e number of SPS measures that China enforces 
against US products without notification to the WTO Secretariat, which would allow Members to 
comment and China to take those comments into account  prior to adoption and implementation.  In its 
2006 TRM submission (G/SPS/W/207), the United States identified 13 measures that China had issued between 1 July 2005 a nd 30 August 2006.  These measures implemented new registration 
requirements, set new safety standards for resi dues, established new inspection procedures, and 
expanded the list of quarantine pests.   To date, it does not appear that any of these measures have been 
notified to the WTO Secretariat for Member comments.  However, many of these measures are 
constraining trade.  The list of measures set fo rth in the US 2006 TRM submission is as follows: 
(a) Ministry of Health (MOH) and Standard s Administration of China (SAC) National 
Hygienic Standard for Fresh (Frozen) Meat of Livestock (GB 2707), 2005 Revision; 
(b) Ministry (MOA) of Agriculture Announc ement No. 517, Additional Chinese Product 
Registration Requirements, issued 6 June 2005; 
(c) AQSIQ Circular 690, Dairy Standard, issued 1 October 2005; 
(d) MOH and SAC Hygienic Standard for Grains (GB 2715), 2005 Revision;  
(e) SAC and AQSIQ National Standard for Fresh and Frozen Poultry Products 
(GB 16869), 2005 Revision; 
(f) MOH Circular No. 1, Food Additive S upplement (GB 2760), Revision 1 for 2006; 
(g) MOH Circular No. 5, Food Additive S upplement (GB 2760), Revision 2 of 2006; 
(h) AQSIQ Ban on Pennsylvania Poultry, effective 12 July 2006 (published on AQSIQ’s 
website on 18 August 2006); G/SPS/W/213 
Page 6  
 
  (i) MOA Announcement No. 611, Animal Feed Registration Requirements, issued 
15 July 2006; 
(j) AQSIQ Notice 777, Cadmium Residue Standard, issued 27 July 2006; 
(k) AQSIQ Announcement No. 89 (2006), Inspection and Quarantine Requirements on 
Conditional Resumption of Boneless Beef Imports from the United States (published 
on AQSIQ’s website on 31 July 2006);  
(l) MOA Announcement No. 617, List of Agricultural Plant Quarantine Object and Plant 
and Plant Products Subject to Quarantine, 2006 Revision;  and 
(m) SAC Maximum Level of Contaminants in Foods (GB 2762), 2006 Revision.  
13. The above-listed measures were enacted by several ministries, including the Ministry of 
Agriculture, the Ministry of Health, the Standard s Administration of China, AQSIQ, and even the 
Ministry of Commerce, China’s Nati onal Notification Authority.  It th erefore appears that the lack of 
notification is a government-wide problem. 
14. Several more measures affecti ng trade have since entered into force without notification to the 
WTO Secretariat for Member comments prior to adoption and implementation.  They are: 
(a) MOA Announcement No. 736, Requirement s for Renewal of GMO Safety 
Certificates, announced on 26 October 2006; 
(b) MOH Circular No. 7 of 2006, Food Additive Varieties Approved for Enlarged Scope 
of Application and/or Dose Levels; 
(c) MOH Circular No. 8 of 2006, Food Add itive Varieties Approved for Enlarged 
Scope of Application and/or Dose Levels, 
(d) MOA Decree No. 70, Administrative Measu res on Agricultural Product Packaging 
and Labelling; 
(e) State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) Measure for Administration 
of Special Signs of Geographical Indica tion Products, effective 30 January 2007, 
AQSIQ Wine Standard GB 15037 of 2006; 
(f) MOFCOM and AQSIQ Joint Announcement 70, strengthening inspection on human 
food, animal feed, and raw materials effective 15 May 2007; 
(g) AQSIQ and MOA Joint Announcement 848, Ban on West Virginia Poultry effective 
17 April 2007;  and 
(h) AQSIQ and MOA Joint Announcement 885, Ban on Virginia Poultry effective 23 
July 2007. 
15. The SPS Agreement obligates Members to notif y measures affecting trade in advance for 
review and comment.  As of 13 September 2007, China had notified 101 SPS measures.  However, at 
the June 2007 meeting of this Committee, China stat ed that it had nine laws, eighteen regulations, 660 
food safety and health standards, and 590 inspection and quarantine standards in force.   
(a) Is it China’s position that only the 101 notif ied measures have trade implications?   G/SPS/W/213 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (b) The United States urges China to suspend implementation of all of the measures 
listed above until they have been notified to the WTO Secretariat and Members have 
been given the opportunity to comment on potential technical concerns.  Will China consider this approach? 
National treatment 
 16. Since 1 December 2006, China has rejected or  destroyed at least 57 shipments of food and 
agricultural product originating from the United Stat es due to alleged safety or quality concerns.  
Many of the measures used by China for import pr oduct testing do not appear to be consistent with 
international standards recognized by the WTO.  Furt her, several of the actions taken by China since 
1 December 2006 invoke regulations that have never been notified to  the WTO Secretariat, such as 
Chinese standards GB 2760, GB 2761, GB 2762,  GB/T 5009.29, GB 16565, GB 16869, and GB 
19295.  The non-notification of several of these me asures is a regulatory transparency concern.  
Moreover, given the significant number of rejected shipments, the United States is highly concerned that China appears to be not meeting its obligati ons under Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement, which 
provides, "Sanitary and phytosanitary measures shall not be applied in  a manner which would 
constitute a disguised restriction on international trade". 
(a) Please clarify how China tests Chinese domestic origin commodities using the 
standards identified above.  What agen cies conduct these tests?  How does China 
identify manufacturers and producers whose products do not adhere to these standards? 
(b) When will China notify these measures to the WTO Secretariat and allow Members 
to comment on them, especially with regard to their divergence from WTO-
recognized international standards? 
(c) Would China also explain what the procedures are for challenging a decision that a 
particular shipment is non-compliant?  Ho w is the relevant evidence provided to 
interested parties such as buyer a nd seller or importer and exporter? 
__________