WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SPS/57 
26 October 2011 
 (11-5367) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ON  
CHINA'S TRANSITIONAL REVIEW 
 
 
 The present report is submitted under the respons ibility of the Chairman, as agreed by the 
Committee at its meeting of 19-20 October 2011. 
  
_______________ 
  
 1. The Committee held its final Annual Transitiona l Review under Paragraph 18 of the Protocol 
of the Accession of the People's Republic of China at the regular meeting commencing on 19 October 2011. 
2. Prior to the meeting, the European Union submitted questions to China in writing in 
document G/SPS/W/262. 
3. Statements made at the Committee meeting in the context of this transitional review by China, 
the European Union, the United States, Mexico and Japan are attached, and will be reflected in the 
summary report of the meeting, to be circulated as G/SPS/R/64. 
_______________ G/SPS/57 
Page 2  
 
  EXCERPT FROM G/SPS/R/64 
III. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF 
 ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
1. The Chairman recalled that in accordance with Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of 
the People's Republic of China, th e SPS Committee was to undertake th is year a final review of the 
implementation by China of the SPS Agreement.  The European Union had submitted its questions 
and comments on the subject in document G/SPS/W/262. 
2. The European Union observed that the Transiti onal Review Mechanism was a very important 
and useful instrument, which allowed Members to  exchange views regarding China's efforts to 
comply with its WTO obligations.  It noted the considerable amount of work that China had 
undertaken to revise its food safety standards, and en couraged China to continue efforts in order to 
fulfil the responsibilities that follow from WTO member ship.  The European Union noted that it had 
shared its specific comments and questions in do cument G/SPS/W/262, and highlighted that in its 
view, (1) China had not fully fulfilled its transparen cy obligations as regards availability of legislation 
in at least one WTO working language and possibilities to comment on all draft legislation, and that 
(2) China had not yet aligned its legislation to se veral international standards, or alternatively 
submitted scientific justification to support all the SPS measures applied.  Under the second point, the 
European Union expressed concerns over the diffe rences between the Chinese list of authorized food 
additives and processing aids and the list consider ed safe by international standard-setting bodies, 
noting that China had not given a scientific justifi cation for this deviation;  and on a BSE-related 
import ban on EU beef and other bovine products desp ite an OIE classification of EU member States 
as either "controlled risk" or "negligible risk" countries.  Lastly, the European Union expressed 
concerns over China's approach to audits and inspections, and flagged that an approach that builds on 
the relevant Codex Alimentarius  standard would be key to avoid unjustifiable delays.  
3. The United States shared the concerns of the European Union as regard s transparency, noting 
that China did not appear to have notifie d all proposed SPS measures as required by the SPS 
Agreement.  It also shared the concerns as regard s BSE-related import bans, and highlighted in this 
respect that the OIE had classified the United St ates as a "controlled risk" country.  Further, the 
United States had specific concerns regarding Chin a's new food registration requirements, notified to 
the WTO as G/SPS/N/CHN/472, as well as China's ze ro tolerance limit for certain pathogens in 
imported raw meat and poultry.  Finally, the Un ited States expressed concerns regarding bans on 
poultry from various US states in response to cases of  low-pathogenic avian influenza (AI), stating 
that these bans were applied beyond the OIE guidance period. 
4. Mexico echoed the EU concerns on transparency, and encouraged further efforts by China in 
terms of publication of standards, technical regula tions and other measures, and in making their texts 
available in at least one WTO working language .  On a related point, Mexico expressed its 
appreciation for the Chinese notification on hygien e standards for distilled liquors and by-products, 
and noted that it had used this opportunity to prov ide relevant scientific information on tequila.  
Mexico also expressed concerns over the control,  inspection and approval procedures applied by 
China, noting that they had been excessively long, and that for cer tain agricultural products, access to 
the Chinese market had required bilateral negotiati ons and additional agreem ents or protocols.  
Mexico further highlighted that with certain prod ucts, such as pig meat, little progress had been made 
in this respect. 
5. Japan also shared the EU con cerns as regards transparency.  According to Japan, it appeared 
that China had not fully complied with its obligation to publish all proposed SPS measures and 
regulations and to provide a reasona ble period for public comments.    G/SPS/57 
 Page 3 
 
 
  6. China thanked the European Union, the United St ates, Mexico and Japan for their statements, 
and offered some clarifications and responses to the questions posed.  At the outset, China stated that 
it had eliminated all non-tariff measures and reduced  the average tariff on goods, and had overhauled 
its body of laws and regulations at central a nd local levels.  These achievements, China noted, 
contributed to full compliance with WTO rules and had a positive effect on trade promotion and 
facilitation at the multilateral level. 
7. China flagged that, as a developing country, it had overcome great capacity constraints to 
fully honour the principle of transparency.  It de tailed the numbers of measures notified and enquiries 
and comments dealt with, and observed that it had de dicated considerable resources to publish its SPS 
measures in a timely manner.  Ch ina also stated that it had done its best to provide a sufficient 
comment period on new SPS measures, as well as to translate the draft measures as frequently as 
possible into at least one WTO working language. 
8. China noted that most of the questions posed  by the European Un ion had already been 
addressed in previous reviews or discussions, includi ng at a bilateral meeting with the EU delegation 
the previous day.  Nonetheless, China addr essed some of the specific questions posed. 
9. On the EU question on food additives and processi ng aids, China noted that its practice not to 
allow the use of additives in food unless their tec hnical necessity and safety had been proven was in 
line with the principles upheld by the Codex Alimenta rius Commission.  It further referenced bilateral 
talks held with the European Union on Chin a's Administrative Licensing Procedures for New 
Varieties of Food Additives, and noted that the Eu ropean Union could encourage its companies to 
submit their applications to the competent Chin ese authority in accordance with these procedures.  
10. In relation to the questions posed on BSE, Ch ina reiterated that it was a BSE-free country, 
and stated that it had adopted its current policy on BSE prevention in a most serious, scientific and prudent manner, while taking an open and coope rative approach to engage with the Members 
concerned.  At a seminar held jointly with the European Union in March 2011, experts from both 
sides had agreed that the pathology of the di sease and the way it spreads were not thoroughly 
understood.  China expressed its willingness to cont inue to cooperate with Members suffering from 
the disease, including the European Union. 
11. China noted that the European Union had put forward in its written submission that China's 
continued additional trade requirements on live pi gs from EU member States due to the pandemic 
influenza virus H1N1 were unnecessary and unjustified , and not in line with statements made by the 
main relevant international organizations such  as OIE, WHO and FAO.  Although the European 
Union had not addressed this issue in its oral statemen t, China provided clarificat ion of its approach to 
preventing H1N1.  China followed a two-fold appro ach:  first, there could be no H1N1 outbreak on 
the exporting farm or within a 50-kilometre radius;  and second, live pigs were to be duly tested for 
H1N1 before they could be exported from the country  concerned.  China observed that it had reached 
agreements with Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and these 
countries were now engaging in the live pig trade with China as usual.   
12. In conclusion, China noted that it was read y and willing to continue discussions with 
Members in all appropriate arenas. 
__________