WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
19 May 2006 
 (06-2439) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Addendum  
 
 
ISSUES CONSIDERED IN 2005 
  
 This part of document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6 c ontains summary information regarding all 
issues which were raised in the SPS Committee for the first time during 2005, and issues which were 
previously raised but on which further discussions  or activities occurred during 2005.  This includes 
issues for which there was no substantive discu ssion in the Committee during 2005, 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 2005 (e.g ., establishment of a dispute resolution panel on 
the issue). 
 
 A total of 51 specific trade concerns were brought to the attention of the Committee during 2005, of which 31 were new issues.  Figure 1 shows a ll trade concerns raised or for which a resolution 
or other action was reported in 2005 by subject.  Overall, 12 issues or 24 per cent of the trade concerns relate to food safety, 15 issues or 29 per cen t relate to plant health, and 3 issues or 6 per cent 
relate to other issues such as transparency of SPS measures.  The remaining 21 issues or 41 per cent 
relate to animal health and zoonoses; this cate gory includes issues such as transmissible spongiform 
encephalopathy (TSEs) that are also relevant for f ood safety.  Figure 2 indicates that TSEs account for 
33 per cent of animal health concerns, while issues related to foot-and-mouth disease and avian 
influenza account for 14 per cent.  The remaining 39 per cent concern other issues such as animal 
disease-free status. 
                                                     
 
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.6/Add.1 
Page ii  
 
   
FIGURE 1:  TRADE CONCERNS BY SUBJECT - 2005 
 
0510152025
Total 21 12 15 3
New 15 8 7 1Animal Health Food Safety Plant Health Other
 
 
  
FIGURE 2:  TRADE CONCERNS RELATED TO ANIMAL HEALTH & ZOONOSES – 2005 
 
 
TSE
33%
FMD
14%Other
39%AI
14%
TSE
FMD
Other
AI G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page iii 
 
 
  FIGURE 3:  PARTICIPATION OF  DEVELOPING COUNTRIES – 2005 
 
 243632
263420
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Members Maintaining the Measure
in QuestionSupporting MembersMembers Raising the Issue
Developed Developing 
 
Of the 51 trade concerns dealt with in 2005, in  32 cases a developed country has raised the 
issue, compared to 20 for developing country Members and zero for least-developed countries  (on 
some occasions developing and developed country Memb ers have raised or supported the same issue).  
Developed country Members have supported anot her Member raising the issue in 36 cases and 
developing country Members have supported anot her Member in 34 cases.  No least-developed 
country Member has supported a trade concern.  In 24  cases, the measure at i ssue was maintained by a 
developing country Member, and in 26 cases it was ma intained by a developed country Member (in 3 
cases, an unspecified number of countries maintain ed an issue).  No trade concerns regarding 
measures maintained by least-developed country Members were raised.  Figure 4 shows that 7 trade concerns were reported solved in 2005.  In 2 cases,  the Committee was informed that a partial solution 
had been found and for the remaining 41  cases, no solution had been reported. 
FIGURE 4:  SOLVED TRADE CONCERNS 
01020304050
Resolved P artially resolved Not reportedNumber of issuesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page iv  
 
  Table 1 – Issues Raised for the First Time in 2005 
Item 
# Title 
217 Australia – Restrictions on New Zealand apples 
205 Bolivia - Slaughter of imported breeding cattle 
218 Brazil - Lack of recognition of regionalization and disease-free status for classical swine fever 
229 Canada - Import restrictions on Enoki mushrooms 
230 Costa Rica -  Phytosanitary requirements on fresh oranges from Nicaragua (G/SPS/N/CRI/43) 
206 European Communities (Greece) - Inspectio n and testing procedures for imported wheat 
207 European Communities - Directiv es on residual pesticide tolerance and inspection methods for tea 
208 European Communities -  Food and feed hygiene rules 
231 European Communities -  Restrictions on cinnamon 
220 European Communities (United Kingdom) - Proposed regulations for piper methysticum (kava-kava) 
(G/SPS/N/GBR/4) 
209 European Communities -  Plant health directive 
219 European Communities - Eurep/Gap requirements for bananas 
210 Guatemala - Restrictions on imports of chicken meat 
211 Guatemala - Restrictions on the transit of avocados 
233 Israel - Absence of phytosanitary import legislation 
232 Israel - Import restrictions on EC beef due to BSE 
212 Japan - Amendment protocol on MRLs for pesticides, veterinary drugs and feed additives 
221 Japan - Safety insurance and quality improvement standards for feed and feed additives 
(G/SPS/N/JPN/128) 
213 Japan - Restrictions on beef   
222 Japan - Import suspension on heat-processed straw and forage for feed 
224 Japan - Restrictions on EC exports of plant and animal products  
223 Japan - Import requirements for Indian mangoes 
225 Mexico - Restrictions on US poultry 
226 Panama - Inspection regime for meat products (G/SPS/GEN/582) 
214 Panama - Inspection regime 
227 Chinese Taipei - BSE-related import restrictions on non-ruminant products 
215 Thailand - Regulation 11 
234 Thailand -  Suspension of importation of li ve poultry and poultry car casses (G/SPS/N/THA/126) 
216 United States - Restrictions on Ya pears imports 
228 United States - Import procedures for fruits and vegetables 
235 Certain Members - Import restrictions on EC exports of live birds, meat, meat products and other 
derivates due to avian influenza  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page v 
 
 
   
Table 2 – Other Items Considered During 2005 
Item # Title 
60 Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine semen and embryos, milk and milk products 
139 Australia – Restriction on pigmeat 
194 Australia – Restrictions on fresh table grapes 
165 Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and United Arab Em irates – Import restrictions on spanish olive oil 
196 China – Measures on us poultry 
197 European Communities – EC regulation on ocratoxin a in coffee (G/SPS/N/EEC/247 and Add.2) 
97 European Communities – Restrictions on the use of fishmeal  
199 European Communities – Deviation from international standard for wood packing material 
96 Geographical BSE risk assessment 
111 Indonesia - FMD restrictions 
192 India – Non-notification of various SPS measures 
133 Japan – Official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables 
100 Japan - Import measures on fire blight 
179 Korea – Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing 
172 Japan – Restrictions on imports of mangoes 
187 Panama – FMD restrictions 
202 Korea – Septoria controls on horticultural products 
123 Venezuela – Restrictions on imports of potatoes, onions, fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and meat 
products 
102 United States - Import restrictions on potted plants from the European Communities 
190 Certain Members - Regionalization and recognition of animal disease free status 
193 Certain Members – General import restrictions due to BSE G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page vi  
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
ARGENTINA ...................................................................................................................... ...................1
 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA ...........................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....1 
60. Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine  semen and embryos, milk and milk 
products ....................................................................................................................... ...........1  
AUSTRALIA...................................................................................................................... ....................3  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA ............................................3  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....3 
139. Australia – Restriction on pigmeat .........................................................................................3  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................4  
194. Australia – Restrictions on fresh table grapes ........................................................................4  
217. Australia – Restrictions on New Zealand apples....................................................................5  
BAHRAIN........................................................................................................................ .......................7  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BAHRAIN ...............................................7  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..................7  
165. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and United Arab Emirates – Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil .............................................................................................................. .......7  
BOLIVIA ........................................................................................................................ ........................8  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA .................................................8  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....8 
205. Bolivia - Slaughter of imported breeding cattle .....................................................................8  
BRAZIL ......................................................................................................................... .........................8  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL ...................................................8  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....8 
218. Brazil - Lack of recognition of regionali zation and disease-free status for classical 
swine fever .................................................................................................................... .........8  
CANADA ......................................................................................................................... .......................9  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA .................................................9  
229. Canada - Import restrictions on Enoki mushrooms from Chinese Taipei ..............................9  
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... ........................10  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA ..................................................10  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..10 
196. China – Measures on US poultry..........................................................................................10  
COSTA RICA..................................................................................................................... ..................11  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY COSTA RICA..........................................11   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page vii 
 
 
  Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................11  
230. Costa Rica -  Phytosanitary requirements on fresh oranges from Nicaragua .......................11  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................1 1 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY  THE EUROPEAN 
COMMUNITIES ..................................................................................................................11  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................11  
197. European Communities – EC regulation on Ocratoxin A in coffee .....................................11  
206. European Communities (Greece) - Inspecti on and testing procedures for imported 
wheat .......................................................................................................................... ..........13  
207. European Communities - Directives on resi dual pesticide tolerance and inspection 
methods for tea ................................................................................................................ .....14  
208. European Communities -  Food and feed hygiene rules.......................................................14  
231. European Communities -  Restrictions on cinnamon ...........................................................15  
220. European Communities (United Kingdom) - Proposed regulations for piper 
methysticum (kava-kava) (G/SPS/N/GBR/4).......................................................................16  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..17 
97. European Communities – Restricti ons on the use of fishmeal .............................................17  
96. European Communities – Geographical BSE risk assessment.............................................19  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................20  
199. European Communities – Deviation from international standard for wood packing 
material....................................................................................................................... ..........20  
209. European Communities -  Plant health directive ..................................................................22  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............23  
219. European Communities - EurepGap  requirements for bananas ...........................................23  
GUATEMALA ...................................................................................................................... ...............24  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY GUATEMALA .......................................24  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..24 
210. Guatemala - Restrictions on imports of chicken meat..........................................................24  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................24  
211. Guatemala - Restrictions on the transit of avocados ............................................................24  
INDIA.......................................................................................................................... ..........................25  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA ....................................................25  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............25  
192. India – Non-notification of various SPS measures...............................................................25  
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ...................26  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA ...........................................26  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..26 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page viii  
 
  111.
 Indonesia - FMD restrictions................................................................................................26  
ISRAEL......................................................................................................................... ........................28  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL .................................................28  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................28  
233. Israel - Absence of phytosanitary import legislation............................................................28  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..28 
232. Israel - Import restrictions on EC beef due to BSE ..............................................................28  
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ........................29  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN ...................................................29  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................29  
212. Japan - Positive list system for pesticid es, veterinary drugs and feed additives 
MRLs........................................................................................................................... .........29  
221. Japan - Safety insurance and quality improvement standards for feed and feed 
additives (G/SPS/N/JPN/128) ..............................................................................................30  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..31 
213. Japan - Restrictions on beef  imports....................................................................................31  
222.  Japan - Import suspension of heat-pro cessed straw and forage for feed ..............................32  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................32  
100. Japan - Import measures on fire blight .................................................................................32  
133. Japan – Official control restrictions on citr us and other fresh fruits and vegetables............34  
172. Japan – Restrictions on imports of mangoes ........................................................................37  
223. Japan - Import requirements for Indian mangoes.................................................................38  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............39  
224. Japan - Restrictions on EC exports  of plant and animal products ........................................39  
REPUBLIC OF KOREA.............................................................................................................. .......40  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA ..................40  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................40  
179. Korea – Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing ...........................................40  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................42  
202. Korea – Septoria  controls on horticultural products.............................................................42  
KUWAIT ......................................................................................................................... .......................7  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY KUWAIT .................................................7  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..................7  
165. (and Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, United Arab  Emirates) – Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil .............................................................................................................. .......7  
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ......................42  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO ...............................................42   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page ix 
 
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..42 
225.  Mexico - Restrictions on US poultry....................................................................................42  
OMAN........................................................................................................................... ..........................7  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY OMAN ....................................................7  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..................7  
165. (and Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, United Ar ab Emirates) – Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil .............................................................................................................. .......7  
PANAMA......................................................................................................................... .....................44  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA ...............................................44  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..44 
187. Panama – FMD restrictions..................................................................................................44  
214. Panama - Inspection regime for food processing establishments.........................................45  
226. Panama - Inspection regime for agricultural products..........................................................46  
QATAR .......................................................................................................................... .........................7  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY QATAR ...................................................7  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..................7  
165. (and Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, United Arab  Emirates) – Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil .............................................................................................................. .......7  
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND 
MATSU (CHINESE TAIPEI)......................................................................................................... ....47  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI ..................................47  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..47 
227. Chinese Taipei - BSE-related import restrictions on non-ruminant products ......................47  
THAILAND....................................................................................................................... ...................48  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THAILAND ............................................48  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................48  
215. Thailand - Regulation 11......................................................................................................4 8 
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............49  
234. Thailand - Suspension of importation of live poultry a nd poultry carcasses 
(G/SPS/N/THA/126) ............................................................................................................49  
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ........................................................................................................... ....7 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES .............7  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..................7  
165. (and Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar) – Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil ...................7  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. ..............50  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES ...........................50  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................50  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page x  
 
  102.
 United States - Import restrictions on potted plants from the European 
Communities .................................................................................................................... ....50  
216. United States - Restrictions on Ya pears imports .................................................................51  
228. United States - Import procedures for fruits and vegetables ................................................52  
VENEZUELA...................................................................................................................... .................53  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY VENEZUELA .........................................53  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............53  
123. Venezuela – Restrictions on imports of potatoes, onions, fertilised eggs, day-old 
chicks and meat products......................................................................................................5 3 
OTHER CONCERNS................................................................................................................. .........55  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..55 
193. Certain Members – General import restrictions due to BSE ................................................55  
190. Certain Members - Regionalization and recognition of animal disease free status..............56  
235. Certain Members - Import restrictions on EC exports of live birds, meat, meat 
products and other derivates due to avian influenza.............................................................57  
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 1 
 
 
  ARGENTINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns Related to TSEs 
 
60. Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine semen and embryos, milk and milk products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Switzerland, South Africa 
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, par as. 17-18), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras 23-
24), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras.  26-28), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
paras. 44-46), October 2001 (G/SPS/ R/25, paras. 18-19), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 51-52) , October 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, para. 94). 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/37, G/SPS/N/ARG/38, G/SPS/N/ARG/47, Corr.1 and Rev.1, 
G/SPS/GEN/114, G/SPS/GEN/131, G/SPS/GEN/135 
Solution: Resolved. 
 1. In March 1999, the European Communities noted it had been unable to obtain the text of 
Argentina's measure on bovine semen imports , and was submitting a series of questions.
  Argentina 
indicated that the measure had been notified (G/SPS/N/ARG/37).  It clarified that the request for the full text of the measure had not been received from the Commission, but from several EC member States.  Argentina committed to sending the re levant document to the European Commission. 
2. In July 1999, the European Communities ag ain expressed concern re garding Argentina's 
BSE-related restrictions on bovine semen, milk  and milk products.  G/SPS/N/ARG/38 concerned a 
draft measure which classified these products as lo w-risk products.  Subs equently notified import 
requirements (G/SPS/N/ARG/47) established country freedom from BSE or low BSE risk as preconditions for importing frozen bovine semen, although according to the OIE, bovine semen from 
healthy animals could be traded without BSE-re lated restrictions.  The European Communities 
indicated that it had received no answers to the que stions raised in March 1999, and raised several 
new questions. 
3. Argentina replied that it had provided answers to the EC questions both bilaterally and in 
G/SPS/GEN/135.  Argentina had received sever al comments on the measure notified in 
G/SPS/N/ARG/47, and had taken these comments into account.  Argentina was planning to issue a revision of G/SPS/N/ARG/47, and was committed to continue exchanging information with the 
European Communities to resolve all questi ons before the measure was adopted.   
4. In November 2000, the European Communities stated that Argentina was applying import 
restrictions on bovine semen that went well be yond international recommendations and were not 
justified.  The European Communities would continue  to pursue this issue bilaterally, and was hopeful 
of a resolution.  Argentina replied that it had no tified, in advance, its regulation as G/SPS/N/ARG/47, 
which was subsequently revised following comme nts by the European Communities and others 
(G/SPS/N/ARG/47/Rev.1).  This regulation establishe d criteria not only in relation to BSE concerns 
but also to two other diseases.  Argentina had resolv ed the problems identified bilaterally by many EC 
member States, in particular Germany and France.  Furthermore, an Argentine veterinary mission 
would be visiting various EC member States early in December and was prepared to also address this 
issue at that time. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 2  
 
  5. In July 2001, the European Communities referre d to the information on BSE circulated by 
OIE and WHO, concluding that there was no evid ence of BSE transmission via milk collected from 
healthy animals (G/SPS/GEN/221, 222, and 230).  However, Argentina was still imposing import 
restrictions on EC dairy products, in par ticular from the United Kingdom.  The European 
Communities had replied to Argentina's extensive qu estionnaire, but Argentina had failed to provide a 
risk assessment to justify its measures.  The Eur opean Communities urged Argentina either to provide 
a scientific justification, or to lift the trade rest rictions.  Otherwise the European Communities would 
have to consider an eventual recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.  Argentina replied that 
in January 2001, its animal health service had ad opted a resolution which imposed restrictions on 
dairy products.  A new, less restrictive sanitary certificate would be notified soon.  Regarding human 
health, dairy products had been reclassified from medium to low risk, and the relevant decree 
eliminated the restrictions.  This reclassification was not yet complete, and one category of milk remained under restriction.  The United Kingdom was considered a high-risk country, but the situation was under analysis. 
6. In October 2001, the European Communities i ndicated that despite statements from the 
Argentine authorities that dairy products would be reclassified, Argen tina continued to place 
restrictions on baby food and on Baileys from Ire land; Belgian chocolate; bovine semen and dairy 
products from the Netherlands; milk powder and ch eese from Germany; Swedish cacao oil butter; and 
dairy products from the United Kingdom and Fran ce.  Furthermore, the European Communities 
disagreed with the classification of dairy products as low-risk, as opposed to no-risk, and criticized the 
lack of transparency of the Argentine measure.  The European Communities was considering eventual 
recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.  Argentina explained that it did not maintain any 
restriction on EC dairy products; they just had to be certified as coming from establishments where no 
case, or suspected case, of BSE had been recorded .  A counter proposal from EC member States that 
milk come from establishments where there had been no case of BSE was currently being studied to determine equivalence.  Regarding transparency, a ll standards could be cons ulted on the web page of 
the Official Bulletin.  As Argentina continued effo rts to resolve this question, it did not consider 
recourse to Article 12.2 consultations necessary. 
7. In June 2005, the European Communities recalle d that exports of bovine semen from some 
EC member States to Argentina we re still suffering restrictions.  According to OIE rules, bovine 
semen should not be subjected to restrictions rega rdless of the BSE status of the exporting country.  
The European Communities invited Argentinean authorities to replace their national bans by specific 
import requirements compliant with OIE standards a nd to finalize negotiations with the concerned EC 
member States in order to resume trade of bovin e semen and embryos.  Argentina replied that it was 
in the process of adjusting its legislation to th e new OIE directive adopted in May 2005. Argentina 
was currently working bilaterally with several EC  member States to reso lve the issue of export 
certificates. 
8. In February 2006, the European Communities re ported that Argentina’s import restrictions on 
bovine semen and embryos due to BSE had recently been lifted and that some EC member States had already benefited from this change.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  AUSTRALIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other Animal Health Concerns 
139. Australia – Restriction on pigmeat   
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Canada, United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 75-76), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 67-69), June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 56-58) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
9. In November 2002, the European Communities noted that Australia banned imports of 
pigmeat from the European Communities, except Danish  pigmeat subject to a specific heat treatment.  
Australia had began a risk assessment for pigmeat imports in May 1998, and although the results had 
been scheduled for February 2000 they had not been  presented and no alternative date had been set.  
Four and a half years was too long a delay to wa it for a risk assessment to be undertaken.  The 
European Communities had formally proposed equi valent measures, but Australia had not accepted 
these.  The European Communities requested Australia to take a decision as quickly as possible. 
10. Australia indicated that a generic import risk an alysis (IRA) of the quarantine risks and risk 
management options associated with disease agents that may be introduced into Australia with 
pigmeat imported from a number of countries, incl uding EC member States was being conducted.  A 
technical issues paper issued early in 2001 identified a range of quarantine risks including foot-and-
mouth disease, African swine fever, classical swine fever, as well as various other pig diseases.  The pigmeat IRA was necessarily comprehensive and co mplex;  Australia's pig industry had a very 
favourable health status.  In the case of EC exports, th e risk analysis had to deal with three OIE List A 
diseases, as well as a number of other serious diseases present in EC member States but absent in 
Australia.  For some serious diseases little scientific information was available and Australia had to 
commission significant research to provide independent scientific information on a range of issues including the transmissibility of Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome (PRRS).  The results of some mayor research was expected to be available at the end of the year.  Technical input 
from the European Communities on PRRS and othe r diseases being considered in the import risk 
analysis would be welcomed. 
11. In April 2003, the European Communities noted that it had taken 17 years to obtain some 
access for processed meat from Denmark into Australia .  Furthermore, there was still no date given 
for the publication of the general risk assessment undertaken by Australia in 1998.  The European 
Communities questioned why there was still a debate  on the methodology to be used for conducting 
the risk assessment four-and-a half years after the risk assessment had begun.  The time necessary for 
completion of the IRA was excessive and the require ments for Danish imports were disproportionate  
to the risk.  The European Communities called on Au stralia to publish the IRA without further delay 
and to give positive consideration to equivalent me asures.  Canada also expressed frustration with the 
delays in Australia's IRA procedures. 
12. Australia observed that Aujetsky's disease w as eradicated in Denmark only in 1992 and 
following that PRRS emerged.  This had to be cons idered in the import risk  analysis commenced in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
  1994.  The import of pigmeat from Denmark, subject to certain requirements, was approved in 1997.  
A generic import risk analysis on pigmeat was assessing import requests from a wide range of countries.  Various updates had been provided – including a recent update to the European 
Commission.  Comments on the methodology paper we re welcomed and a draft of the risk assessment 
would be available as soon as possible. The process  was transparent and science-based.  Independent 
research on PRRS had demonstrated oral transmission of the virus via pigmeat.  Given the lack of 
scientific information on its transmission via meat , Australia was seeking the information needed for 
an informed quarantine policy decision.   
13. In June 2005, the European Communities inform ed the Committee that a joint expert working 
group had been established to look at ways of rest oring full trade while protecting Australia from the 
introduction of Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS).  A recent court case in 
Australia had ruled that the risk measures for P MWS protection laid down in the Australian risk 
assessment were not scientifically based and that no import permits relying on these measures would be issued.  Consequently, the European Comm unities and other WTO Members where PMWS was 
present were unable to expand the ra nge of products authorized for export to Australia.  There was 
also a risk that existing licences, valid only for tw o years, would not be renewed in July 2006.   
14. Canada and the United States expressed apprecia tion for the Australian Government's appeal 
of the court decision and the efforts to minimize its trade impact.  Canada  hoped that the Australian 
Government would continue to honour the existi ng import permits and woul d maintain a science-
based approach to imports.   
15. Australia confirmed that the Australian Govern ment's policy determination for the import of 
pig meat, completed in May 2004, had been the subj ect of a legal challenge in the Federal Court of 
Australia, which focused on the conditions for the import of pig meat from countries where PMWS was present.  While one import permit had been revoked, the remaining 83 had been maintained.  
Australia was unable to issue any new permits.  The Australian Government had appealed this 
judgement and was seeking an expedited hearing.   
Plant Health 
194. Australia – Restrictions on fresh table grapes 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 216), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras 34-36), June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras 62-64). 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/ 148/Add.1, G/SPS/N/AUS/153/Add.1, G/SPS/N/AUS/ 
148/Add.2 
Solution: Solved (G/SPS/N/AUS/ 148/Add.3) 
 16. In October 2004, Chile stated that in 1998 Aust ralia was requested to indicate its market 
access requirements for table grapes.  Following initial meetings between the regulatory agencies, Chile understood that the import risk analysis w ould last approximately 12 months.  A number of 
technical meetings had since taken place, however , a solution had not been reached despite the 
provision of all required technical information.  The undue delays and changes in the procedures 
undertaken by Australia were a concern to Chile.  Australia noted the concerns expressed by Chile 
and indicated its commitment to work with Chile to  finalize the import risk analysis as quickly as 
possible.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  17. In March 2005, Chile recalled its concerns regarding the undue delays experienced by 
Chilean exporters of fresh grapes to Australia wh ich were contrary to the provisions of the SPS 
Agreement, notably Article 5.4 and Annex C.  In  2004, the IRA for Chilean fresh grapes had been 
revised.  In February 2005, the draft text of the new IRA for Chilean fresh grapes had been published 
and subjected to a 45-day consultation period.  Ch ile underlined its serious concerns that this IRA 
would not be finalized in time for the October e xport period for Chilean fresh grapes.  The European 
Communities recalledthat the European Communitie s was facing similar problems for various food 
products.  He urged Australia to ensure that its  sanitary and phytosanitary measures were taken 
exclusively for sanitary and phytosanitary reasons and without undue delays.  
18. Australia clarified that Biosecurity Australia had become a prescribed agency in December 
2004 and shortly after had reviewed and reissued seve ral of the draft IRAs.  Two of these IRAs had 
recently been released for public comments(G/SPS/N/AUS/ 148/Add.1 and G/SPS/N/AUS/153/Add.1), while the revised draft IR A on importation of fresh grapes from Chile was 
currently available for public comments on Biosecurity Australia's website.   
19. In June 2005,  Chile noted that on 24 June, afte r a process of consultations and comments, the 
report had been forwarded to the Eminent Scientists  Group.  Chile hoped that the final authorization 
would be granted before the next gr ape shipping season in mid-October. 
20. The European Communities raised concerns re garding the transparency of the Australian 
quarantine regime for fruits and vege tables, and noted that long delays before the issuance of a risk 
assessment had prevented EC exporters from acc essing the Australian market for years.   
21. Australia assured Chile that it was committed to  deliver a science-based risk assessment as 
soon as possible.  The final IRA for table grapes from Chile was notified to the SPS Committee in 
September 2005 (G/SPS/N/AUS/ 148/Add.2).  In D ecember 2005, Australia notified to the SPS 
Committee that imports of Chilean fresh table grap es were now authorized under certain conditions 
(G/SPS/N/AUS/ 148/Add.3).  
217. Australia – Restrictions on New Zealand apples 
Raised by: New Zealand 
Supported by: Chile, European Communities, United States 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 13-15), October 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 64-68) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
22. In June 2005, New Zealand explained that  it had been actively pursuing access to the 
Australian apple market since 1986.  Fresh apples were the second most significant horticultural export of New Zealand after kiwifruit.  Austra lia's ban on New Zealand apples was based on the 
perceived risk of fire blight transmission, altho ugh science had clearly demonstrated that the risk of 
mature symptomless apples in trade being vectors for the transmission of fire blight was negligible.  
Since 1999, when New Zealand made its fourth application for regaining access to the Australian 
apple market, the Australian authorities had only rel eased two draft risk analyses, systematically 
followed by a round of comments.  This undue delay of six years was unacceptable   
23. Chile, the European Communities and the United St ates indicated that they had experienced 
similar difficulties.  The European Communities hoped that since Australia was reviewing the 
scientific justification of its 2004 risk assessment in light of the Panel findings in the Japan-Apples G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
  case, its phytosanitary import policy might improve.  The United States recalled that the major plant 
pest of concern was fire blight.  As mentioned earlier, a WTO dispute settlement Panel had recently 
found that stringent control requirements were not justified on the basis of the available scientific 
evidence, which clearly demonstrated that mature  symptomless apple fruit did not pose a risk of 
transmitting fire blight.  It encouraged Austra lia to expeditiously modify its existing import 
prohibitions on apples and other fruits due to fire blight concerns.  Chile requested to be kept 
informed of any progress on this issue. 
24. Australia reminded the Committee that recent changes to Austra lia's biosecurity agency had 
caused some delays in the time taken to complete a number of risk analyses.  Australia was committed 
to deliver a science-based risk  assessment for New Zealand apples as soon as possible.   
25. In February 2006, New Zealand informed the Committee that since June 2005, Australia had 
issued a new revised draft import risk analysis for New Zealand apples.  This new revised draft 
allowed the import of New Zealand apples into Au stralia under certain conditions.  Australia had 
already proposed a similar conditional access in res ponse to previous requests without justifying the 
scientific basis of these conditions.  Australia requi red not only that orchards be inspected by their 
own officials and found free of fire blight, but also that apples be immersed in chlorine prior to 
export.  These measures were unjustified.  Australia  also prohibited imports of New Zealand apples 
into Western Australia because of apple scab disea se, although another outbreak of apple scab had 
been reported in Western Australia at the time the revi sed draft import risk analysis had been released.  
New Zealand considered that Australia's biosecurity  import risk analysis process, based on cycles of 
drafts and consultations, constitu ted a disguised restriction on trade.  These undue delays created 
uncertainty about whether and when the Australia n Government would complete its import risk 
analysis.  
26. The United States stated that there was an outst anding US request for access to the Australian 
market.  Given both the strong science and the legal record established by the WTO dispute settlement 
process with regard to the risk of transmitting fire  blight via mature symptom-less apples, Australia 
should remove its unjustified import prohibitions and ensure that its import requirements were based 
on science and consistent with the SPS Agreement.  
27. The European Communities recalled that in J une 2005, Australia had suspended its import 
risk assessment for New Zealand apples pending a review in the light of the Japan-Apples case.  Then 
a new revised draft had been submitted for consid eration.  The European Communities had similar 
experiences with Australia in trying to get access for chicken meat or pig meat.   
28. Australia stressed that all the relevant scientific  information, including that considered in the 
Japan-Apples case, had been taken into account in the assessment of the risks from New-Zealand 
apples.  The new draft report was available for co mments until 30 March 2006.  After consideration of 
comments received, a final review of the draft repo rt would be undertaken by an eminent group of 
scientists.  If this group confirmed that all releva nt information has been taken into account in the 
analysis (including stakeholder comments), the report and its recommendations on import conditions 
would be transmitted to the Director of Animal a nd Plant Quarantine for a policy determination.  The 
revised draft report took account of Australia’s level of protection (ALOP).  Fire blight was one of a 
number of pest and diseases of quara ntine concern dealt with in the revised draft report.  The report 
appropriately took into account the variations in th e phytosanitary status of different regions within 
Australia.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  BAHRAIN, KUWAIT, OMAN, QATAR, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BAHRAIN , KUWAIT , OMAN , QATAR AND 
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES  
Food Safety 
165. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and United Arab Emirates – Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para . 166), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, para. 17), 
October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 58), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, para. 
75) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Solved 
 
29. In June 2003, the European Communities reporte d on the final results of the investigation 
concerning the problems with olive oil contaminat ion in Spain in 2002.  The contamination had 
occurred due to a manufacturing error, but the prob lem had since been resolved.  The restrictions 
which some Members continued to impose on Spanish olive oil were therefore no longer justified. 
30. In June 2004, the European Co mmunities raised concerns over import restrictions on Spanish 
pomace olive oil imposed by some Gulf countries.  After an isolated safety incident in 2001, some 
Members applied restrictive measures to this produc t.  Since 2001, most Members had gradually lifted 
the import ban, except the Gulf countries.  These pro ducts no longer were a risk to human or animal 
health, as corrective measures had been quickly and properly applied by the competent authorities of 
Spain.  Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the Un ited Arab Emirates were requested to immediately 
lift the ban on any type of oliv e oil imported from the European Union as the ban was not based on 
any scientific evidence. 
31. In October 2004, the European Communities stated that bilateral consultations were held with 
several Gulf countries prior to the meeting to ad dress restrictions imposed on Spanish olive oil by 
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Ar ab Emirates.  The European Communities were 
hopeful for a prompt resolution of the issue and woul d also be holding bilateral meetings with Oman 
and Kuwait. 
32. In February 2005, Oman reported that it had lifted  the ban on pomace olive oil from Spain.  In 
June 2005, the European Communities informed th e Committee that Oman, Bahrain and Kuweit had 
decided to lift the ban on EC exports of pomace oil without further requirements such as certification.  
The European Communities was hoping that this w ould allow trade to resume with these three 
Members very soon. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
  BOLIVIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns Related to TSEs 205. Bolivia - Slaughter of imported breeding cattle 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by: None 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 45-47) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Resolved 
 
33. In March 2005, Mexico stated that Bolivia ha d slaughtered a number of Mexican cows in 
2004 on the grounds that Mexico was a high-risk country  for BSE.  Mexico considered this to be in 
breach of Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5, 6 and Annex C of th e SPS Agreement.  BSE was classified as an exotic 
illness in Mexico, as Mexico was free of the disease.  At the end of 1996, the Mexican animal health 
authorities had implemented an epidemiological su rveillance programme for BSE, based on the OIE 
recommendations.    
34. Bolivia clarified that the Mexican cattle had b een slaughtered because they had arrived at 
Bolivia's airport without the relevant animal health  permit.  Bolivian health authorities had required 
the re-exportation or the disposal of the cattle, howev er due to inaction by the Mexican authorities, the 
cattle had been slaughtered.  Mexico concluded th at the issue with Bolivia had been resolved. 
BRAZIL 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other Animal Health Concerns 
218. Brazil - Lack of recognition of regionalizat ion and disease-free status for classical 
swine fever 
Raised by: EC 
Supported by: None 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 42-44) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
35. In June 2005, the European Communities recalle d its concerns regarding Brazil's lack of 
recognition of regionalization and disease-free status for several animal diseases, including classical 
swine fever (CSF).  French exports of pig products  to Brazil were experiencing restrictions, although 
the domestic EC pig population was free of CSF according to OIE standards.  CSF in France was  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  epidemiologically under control, with strict veteri nary and police surveillance and systems for animal 
identification and traceability.   
36. Brazil responded that its measures regarding regionalization for CSF in the European 
Communities were based on an assessment of the ri sks for disease spread, taking into account the size 
of the proposed CSF-free area and considering th e epidemiological characteristics of the disease 
agent.  These control measures were scientifica lly supported by Article 2.6.7.3 of the 2004 OIE 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  Moreover, th e disease agent could be found in the wild boar 
population, which made more difficult the establishm ent of control measures for a proposed disease-
free area.  The probability of the CSF agent spreading to domestic pigs had to be considered.  During 
bilateral meetings in April 2005, Brazil had proposed  the establishment of a bilateral expert working 
group to define risk analysis criteria related to equivalent regionalization procedures.  The Brazilian 
sanitary authorities were currently working with the bila teral expert group in order to define criteria.  
Brazil had a regular and continuous CSF-free zone wh ich covered almost all commercial swine herds.  
CANADA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA  
Plant Health 
 229. Canada - Import restrictions on En oki mushrooms from Chinese Taipei  
Raised by: Chinese Taipei 
Supported by: None 
Dates raised: October 2005/Februar y 2006(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 36-38) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported. 
 
37. 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.   
38. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 10  
 
  CHINA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other Animal Health Concerns 
196. China – Measures on US poultry  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as. 26-29), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
para. 83) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution:  Resolved 
 
39. In October 2004, the United States raised concerns over China's nation-wide ban on US 
poultry products following the detection of low pathogeni c avian influenza in the state of Delaware in 
February 2004.  The import ban was not modifi ed accordingly when hi ghly pathogenic avian 
influenza was detected in the state of Texas, instead , it was applied to the entire territory of the United 
States despite the fact that the highly pathogenic av ian influenza outbreak was confined to a limited 
area.  The outbreaks were brought under control a nd eradication, cleaning and disinfection of the 
highly pathogenic infected premises was comp leted on 23 February 2004.  On 20 August 2004, 
trading partners were advised that the six-month period prescribed by the OIE had elapsed and that 
the United States was free of highly pathogenic avian influenza.  Despite this, China still maintained 
the ban on poultry products from the entire territory of  the United States.  These restrictions were not 
scientifically justified and were inconsistent with SPS obligations.  China was requested to lift the ban 
immediately and to ensure that future implementation of emergency measures were consistent with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  Canada noted similar concerns with China  maintaining a 
comprehensive ban when regionalized measures were the appropriate response, and sought the 
removal of all measures with respect to Canada. 
40. China stated that provisional emergency measure s were adopted early in 2004 to prevent the 
entry and spread of low and highly pathogenic av ian influenza.  A ban on the importation of US 
poultry and poultry products was therefore implem ented.  China had communicated with the United 
States to conduct on-site inspections with the objec tive of regionalizing its ban on avian influenza as 
well as the possibility of lifting the ban on US poultr y.  A risk assessment was being conducted and a 
decision would be made based on the outcome of the risk assessment.  China's actions were consistent 
with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement and OIE guidelines and recommendations. 
41. In March 2005, the United States mentioned that since the SPS Committee meeting of 
October 2004, China had taken actions and the issue had been resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  COSTA RICA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY COSTA RICA 
Plant Health 230. Costa Rica -  Phytosanitary requireme nts on fresh oranges from Nicaragua  
Raised by: Nicaragua 
Supported by: None 
Dates raised: October 2005/Februar y 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 90-92) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/CRI/43 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
42. In October 2005, Nicaragua reported that in  mid-2005 competent authorities from Nicaragua 
and Costa Rica had put in place a bi-national tec hnical team responsible for the prevention and 
eradication of C itrus leprosis , as well as the maintenance of citrus leprosis -free areas.  The team had 
confirmed the presence of the Citrus leprosis in the south of Costa Rica and in the north of Nicaragua, 
as well as the Citrus leprosis-free status of south Nicaragua, the region containing commercial citrus 
fruits groves for export.  The risk analysis by Cost a Rica indicated mature fruits were not the pathway 
for the spread of the disease, hence imported fruits, which were mature, did not present any 
phytosanitary risk.  The adoption by Costa Rica of an emergency prohibition on imports from Nicaragua was not justified and more trade restri ctive than necessary to maintain Costa Rica's 
appropriate phytosanitary level of protection. 
43. Costa Rica indicated that Nicaragua complied with the requirements as its fresh oranges 
originated from a pest-free area and Costa Rica ha d not prohibited oranges entering from Nicaragua. 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY  THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Food Safety 197. European Communities – EC regulation on Ocratoxin A in coffee  
Raised by: Colombia 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Kenya, Peru,  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, pa ras. 61-67), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, 
paras 168-170). 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/475, G/SPS/GEN/490, G/SPS/GEN/515, G/SPS/R/33 (paras. 
34-39), G/SPS/N/EEC/247, G/SPS/N/EEC/247/Add.2. 
Solution: Not reported 
 44. In October 2004, Colombia reported that in May 2004, the European Communities had 
responded to Colombia's questions regarding Germ any's measures on Ocratoxin A (OTA) in roasted 
and soluble coffee (see also item 176), explaining th at Germany was able to set maximum levels OTA 
in coffee as harmonized EC standards were not yet established (G/SPS/GEN/490).  On 1 September G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 12  
 
  2004, the European Communities issued G/SPS/N/EEC/ 247, notifying Members of the EC proposal 
to establish levels for OTA in roasted and soluble coffee. 
45. Colombia continued to be concerned about th e impact of the measures on the marketing of 
coffee in Europe and had raised several questi ons as outlined in G/SPS/GEN/515.  The European 
Communities were asked to explain why OTA levels were set for coffee when coffee contributed only 
8 per cent of the intake of OTA in the European di et compared with cereals and cereal products which 
contributed 50 per cent of the intake of OTA.  Scie ntific justification for the levels of OTA set for 
coffee was requested from the Europ ean Communities, as well as an explanation of the method used 
to determine the OTA levels.  The European Comm unities were also requested to explain why the 
OTA levels for coffee and cereals and cereal products  were the same when the intake of OTA was 
higher in cereals and cereal products than in coffee.   Moreover, if the OTA levels for beer were 
indirectly controlled by its main input, malt, why were not the OTA levels for soluble coffee 
indirectly controlled by its main input, roasted coff ee.  Finally, the European Communities were asked 
to explain why there was a need to protect public  health with regards to coffee and not beer.  
Colombia suggested that the European Communitie s consult studies on OTA toxicology as a starting 
point in establishing maximum OTA levels in green  coffee.  The entire production chain would need 
to be regulated when establishing maximum levels of OTA for green coffee which would be both impractical and counterproductive as additional infrastructure and stor age facilities would be needed.  
Furthermore, the risks of formation of mycotoxins were increased during prolonged periods of storage 
due to the condensation and re-hum idification process in the beans.  OTA levels should not be set 
until there was scientific justification.  The Codex Al imentarius was requested to consider the issue of 
maximum levels of OTA in coffee in the join t FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 
(JECFA). 
46. Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic , Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Kenya 
and Peru supported the statements made by Colombia  and requested a copy of the EC response to the 
questions posed by Colombia.  Chile stated that  the Committee should include this issue under the 
procedure to monitor the use of international standards. 
47. The Codex Alimentarius reported that little pr ogress had been made on this issue in Codex 
since the March meeting of the SPS Committee.  Codex had not established Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for green and roasted coffee but ha d been working to establish MRLs in cereals for 
several years.  However, this was still at the ela boration stage due to the lack of consensus on the 
numerical limits. The Codex Committee for Food  Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) had 
requested JECFA to include the ri sk assessments on OTA for evaluation by 2006.  At the last meeting 
of the CCFAC, a suggestion was made to include new work in Codex on the development of a code of 
practice to reduce mycotoxin contamination in coffee and cocoa.  This proposal will be discussed at 
the next CCFAC meeting in April 2005. 
48. The European Communities explained that once EC harmonized standard s were established, 
national standards ceased to be effective.  From the perspective of the exporting country, the EC 
harmonized standards had the advantage of being lo wer than the national standards of many member 
States.  The responses to Colombia’s questions w ould be made available through the Secretariat and 
the European Commission’s website contained info rmation on the methodology used to determine the 
level of OTA in coffee.  The EC draft regulati on covered ground and roasted coffee but not green and 
soluble coffee.  MRLs for OTA had already been  established for grains and its by-products and 
raisins.  Furthermore, MRLs for OTA for wine a nd wine based beverages had been proposed.  While 
studies had concluded that cereals and cereal-based products were the main sources of consumer 
exposure to OTA, wine, grape juice and roasted an d soluble coffee also contributed significantly to 
consumer exposure.  The European Communities would reassess its decision on the basis of the 
results of the toxicology studies on OTA that would be available in 2006.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  49. In June 2005, Colombia raised concerns regarding the adoption of EC regulation 
No. 123/2005 on maximum OTA levels in coffee, notified as G/SPS/N/EEC/247/Add.2.  Colombia 
had commented on previous notifications fro m the European Communities and from Germany 
(G/SPS/N/DEU/9) on this subject.  The European Co mmunities had adopted more flexible levels than 
those previously established by Germany.  However,  the adopted regulation foresaw a revision of the 
maximum levels for certain products by 30 June 2006 , at which time the est ablishment of a maximum 
level for OTA in green coffee would be considered .  This was of concern to Colombia because the 
application of maximum ochratoxin levels for roaste d and soluble coffee already implied the indirect 
application of a maximum level for green coffee.  The establishment of a maximum level for green 
coffee would regulate the entire production chain, unlike for other products covered by the same 
notified measure.  According to Colombia, given the large amounts of green coffee arriving every day 
in European ports, additional infrastructure would be needed to store the coffee during testing.  
Furthermore, during the testing process, the green coffee could undergo condensation and re-
humidification processes, which were among the principal risk factors for mycotoxins.  Colombia was willing to work with the European Communiti es and share progress made regarding preventive 
measures, which should be taken in to account in risk assessments. 
50. Chile identified similar concerns and sought in formation on maximum ochratoxin levels for 
wine, which faced a similar situation. 
51. The European Communities explained that th e measures introduced represented a harmonized 
system for imports into the European Communities that was advantageous for exporting countries, 
since previously the 25 member States had ha d individual requirements.  These individual 
requirements had been far more demanding than the harmonized levels now est ablished.  He invited 
Colombia to contact the European  Communities to discuss the details. 
206. European Communities (Greece) - Inspection and testing procedures for imported 
wheat 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 32-33), Octobe r 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 222-223) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
52. In March 2005, Canada reported that Gree ce had introduced new inspection and testing 
requirements for imports of grains from third countriesin 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.  
53. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 14  
 
  54. 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.  
207. European Communities - Directives on resi dual pesticide tolerance and inspection 
methods for tea 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: India 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 22-24) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
55. In March 2005, China recalled that in July 2001, the European Communities had issued a 
directive on residual pesticide tolerance and insp ection methods for tea in which the EC maximum 
residue limits (MRLs) for seven types of pesticides were higher than those of the Codex standards.  
When previously discussing that issue bilaterally, China had unsuccessfully requested the scientific 
evidence and risk assessments justifying these MR Ls.  China requested that the European 
Communities apply its detection method for residues on diluted tea as opposed to dry tea leaves, in 
which pesticide levels were much higher. 
56. India expressed concerns that tea was being si ngled out for rigid residual limits while other 
competing products consumed in larger quantiti es in European Communities were not affected. 
57. The European Communities clarified that the cu rrent regulation on MRLs for pesticides was a 
combination of EC and member States MRLs.  The European Communities was in the process of 
adopting a new regulation on MRLs for pesticides in all food and feedstuffs that would harmonize all 
EC member states' national legislation and woul d likely enter into force in mid 2006.  The EC 
inspection methods for tea were based on the existin g Codex methods.  Regarding India's concern, the 
European Communities did not intend to discriminate against tea in relation with any other beverage. 
208. European Communities -  Food and feed hygiene rules 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States, Jamaica 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 15-18) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/GEN/539 
Solution: Not reported 
 
58. Canada sought clarifications from the Europ ean Communities on the requirements that would 
apply to third countries when the new food and feed  hygiene rules come into force on 1 January 2006 
(Regulations 852/2004, 853/2004 a nd 854/2004).  Canada further invited the European Communities 
to solicit comments from third countri es sufficiently in advance of the implementation date so that the 
comments could be incorporated into the final measu res.  The United State encouraged the European  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Communities to provide more formal explanations of  the nature and scope of the rules applying to 
exporting countries.  Jamaica agreed with Cana da and United States on the need for further 
clarifications from the European Communities.  
59. The European Communities recalled that a docum ent clarifying the traceability provisions of 
the new body of legislation had been circulated in February 2005 (G/SPS/GEN/539).  This document 
explained that the aim of traceability provisions we re intended to identify each link in the chain of 
supply in the event of product recalls.  A seminar ope n to all third countries would be held in Brussels 
to explain the consequences of the entry into  force of the food and feed hygiene rules. 
231. European Communities -  Restrictions on cinnamon 
Raised by: Sri Lanka 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: October 2005/Februar y 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 52-58) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/GEN/597 
Solution: Not reported 
 
60. In October 2005 and February 2006, Sri Lanka reported problems with exports of Ceylon 
cinnamon ( Cinnamomum zeylanicum)  to the European Communities, in particular to Germany,  on the 
grounds that the cinnamon contained sulphur dioxide (SO2) (G/SPS/GEN/597).  Directive No. 
95/2/EC and its subsequent amendments on the import of foodstuffs liste d conditionally permitted 
preservatives and additives including SO2 and sulphites and maximum tolerated levels in a number of 
products, but not in cinnamon.  The chemical evaluation undertaken by the FAO/WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1998 had shown that the use of SO2
 in acceptable 
quantities as a food additive did not produce any adverse effects on human health.  The presence of a 
certain amount of SO2  as a food additive had also been permitte d in Codex and EC standards.  SO2  
fumigation had been applied by the cinnamon industr y in Sri Lanka as an acceptable method to obtain 
a better colour and to prevent fungus and insects, an d as there was no direct application of sulphur to 
cinnamon, no residual content of SO2was expect ed to be present in the final product.  
61. The current EC restrictions would drastically reduce Sri Lanka’s exports to the EC market, 
and might also have an effect on Sri Lanka's expor ts to other markets.  Sri Lanka questioned the 
consistency of the EC measure with Article 3.3 of  the SPS Agreement.  The Codex General Standards 
for Food Additives indicated that the lack of reference to a particular  additive or to the use of an 
additive in a specific food did not imply  that the additive was unsafe or uns uitable for use in food.  Sri 
Lanka queried whether the EC Scientific Committe e for Food had undertaken an assessment of the 
risk posed by Sri Lanka's cinnamon on human health .  In addition, Sri Lanka sought clarification 
regarding  what relevant economic factors had led the European Communities to decide that a de facto  
import ban was the appropriate leve l of protection required in this situation and if the European 
Communities had taken into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects when 
determining the appropriate level of SPS protection.  Sri Lanka s uggested there was scope for the 
European Communities to provide longer time-frames  for Sri Lanka to comply with EC SPS measures 
on cinnamon, as provided for in Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement.  Sri Lanka requested the 
European Communities to suspend its current de facto  ban while his country pursued the development 
of a Codex standard on MRLs for cinnamon.  Sri La nka also requested, as a transitional measure, that 
the European Communities accept Sr i Lankan cinnamon with an SO2  content up to  150ppm until the 
maximum residue limit for SO2 in cinnamon were  defined at the international level.  
62. China requested that the Eur opean Communities provide a risk analysis and safety assessment 
report and expressed hope the issue could be resolve through bilateral consultations. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 16  
 
  63. The European Communities recognized that the EC legislation on food additives and 
contaminants had no provision for sulphur dioxide in  cinnamon, and changing the legislation to allow 
SO2
 in cinnamon could be a lengthy process.  The European Commission had explored the possibility 
of providing technical assistance to Sri Lanka  to assist in the preparation of this dossier.  The 
European Commission had brought EC member States’ attention to the need to approve SO2  as an 
additive in cinnamon and encouraged member St ates to adapt their import policies pending the 
modification of the EC legislation. 
64. The representative of Codex confirmed that the use of SO2  as an additive was currently under 
discussion at step 3 in the framework of the C odex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants 
(CCFAC).  The pace of finalization of the discu ssions depended on contri butions and views of 
CCFAC participants.  Sulphur dioxide had been evaluated by the JECFA  in 1998 and was currently 
allowed on a few commodities.  The CCFAC would meet  the last week of April 2006, which provided 
an occasion for Members to stress the importance and urgency of developing a MRL for SO2 in cinnamon. 
220. European Communities (United Kingdom) - Proposed regulations for piper 
methysticum (kava-kava) (G/SPS/N/GBR/4) 
Raised by: Fiji 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 72-73) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/GBR/4 
Solution: Not reported 
 
65. At the June 2005 meeting, Fiji expressed concerns regarding the UK notification of 
emergency measures on kava-kava, as  kava-kava was one of Fiji's few tradable crops of economic 
significance.  Fiji's concerns were related to the request of the UK Commission on Safety of Medicines (CSM) to prohibit kava-kava use in unli censed medicinal products on the grounds that the 
CSM had sufficient evidence to conclude that kava -kava was associated with rare cases of liver 
toxicity.  According to an in-depth investiga tion of kava-kava products conducted by a German 
consulting firm in 2003, the efficacy and safety of kava-kava had been proven by 20 clinical trials 
including more than 10,000 patients and supporte d by post-marketing experience in Europe, the 
United States and other areas.  Health author ities such as the US Food and Drug Administration 
agreed that kava-kava was a safe drug.  Findings also  showed that should the toxicity exist, it would 
occur in an extremely low number of patients, far below the incident rate observed with other freely 
available drugs.  Out of 450 million kava-kava pills exported all over the word between 1990 and 
2000, only three cases of liver problems had been li nked to the pills.  The Fiji kava-kava council was 
currently drafting a legislative text including, inter alia , standards, certification and labelling to ensure 
consistency and quality of supply.  Fiji request ed the European Communities to provide any new 
evidence that supported the claim that the cons umption of products containing kava-kava was 
associated with liver damage. 
66. The European Communities recalled that the re gulation banning kava-kava had come into 
force in England and Scotland in 2003 following report s of rare but serious risks to public health and 
a review of evidence by independent experts in 200 2.  Similar regulations for Northern Ireland had 
been planned at the time but only notified on 14 June  2005.  A similar notification for Wales was also 
due to be issued soon.  The Food Standards Agency of the United Kingdom had recently requested 
new evidence on kava-kava in order to review its position.  
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns Related to TSE 
97. European Communities – Restrictions on the use of fishmeal  
Raised by: Chile, Peru, Norway 
Supported by: Ecuador, United States, Iceland, Norway, Peru, Chile 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras.  17-21), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
12-17), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 31-32), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 
134-136), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/ 36/Rev.1, paras. 74-77) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/GEN/256, G/SPS/GEN/264 
Solution: Not reported 
 
67. In July 2001, Peru expressed concern about the EC prohibition on the use of fishmeal in the 
elaboration of ruminant feed, which had no scientif ic basis, was not based on a risk assessment, and 
was more trade-restrictive than required.  The comp etent authorities in Peru had shown that fishmeal 
and fish oil were safe to human and animal h ealth, and had high nutritional value.  Since the 
prohibition had a very serious impact on the Peruvian economy, Peru asked the European 
Communities to lift this restriction as soon as possible.   Chile underlined that fishmeal was not at all 
related to BSE.  At bilateral meetings, the Eur opean Communities had explained that the restriction 
was related to cross-contamination of fishmeal  and other animal meals within the European 
Communities.  Chile requested the European Comm unities to exclude fishmeal from the prohibition, 
and to be more flexible with standards applied to  processing plants in the meantime.  The European 
Communities had classified Chile as having minimal BSE risk, and Chile ha d offered to provide 
quality and traceability certificates.  Chile was surprised  that there were no restrictions on vegetable 
meals, which could also be mixed with meat a nd bone meal (MBM) in feed.  In addition, MBM 
continued to be used as pet food in the European  Communities.  The United States urged Members to 
reacquaint themselves with the relevant OI E guidelines and recommendations (G/SPS/GEN/230). 
68. The OIE representative drew attention to the WHO/FAO/OIE conference held in June 2001 
on BSE, public health, animal health and trade (G /SPS/GEN/260).  The expert s at this meeting had 
concluded that the basis of the EC ban on feedi ng rendered animal protein to farm animals was to 
avoid risk of cross-contamination of the animal feed  system.  Discussions had highlighted the lack of 
technical means to verify the absence of banned products in meals at very low levels.  The European Communities confirmed that the ban on the use of fish meal in ruminant feed was a safeguard measure 
reflecting failures in the implementation of rules on animal feed.  Imports of fishmeal had not been 
prohibited, but its use was subject to strict conditions.  The European Communities wished to 
minimize trade effects and was ready to evaluate with Chile, Peru and other countries the 
consequences, if any, on their exports. 
69. In October 2001, Peru indicated that the Eu ropean Communities recognized that there was no 
scientific evidence demonstrating that BSE could be  transmitted through fishmeal, but maintained its 
restrictions to address an internal problem of cr oss-contamination and fraudulent practices.  Peru 
requested that the European Comm unities lift the restrictions as soon as possible.  Chile noted that 
applying the same restrictions on fishmeal as for MBM had no scientific basis and was not consistent 
with OIE or WHO recommendations.  Chile was concerned over the length of time that the 
provisional measure had been in place and the suggest ion that a new diagnostic test of the presence of 
animal proteins in feed would need to be devel oped before the measure could be rescinded.  Chile 
would explore all options available under the SPS Agre ement to have the restrictions lifted.  The 
United States underlined the need for BSE control me asures to reflect the different risk status of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 18  
 
  particular products and countries.  Iceland obj ected strongly to the EC measures which were 
tantamount to an import ban on fishmeal for animal feed. 
70. The European Communities clarified that the legislation was a provisional measure that 
covered the internal use of fishmeal.  As all pr oducers were requested to fulfil the same conditions, 
the measure was not discriminatory.  A derogation allowed the use of fishmeal in feeds for non-
ruminant animals provided certain strict produc tion and handling conditions were met.  The 
development of a reliable, but l ess laborious detection test would be a decisive element when 
reviewing the feed ban, and efforts were underw ay in the Communities in this regard.  The 
representative of the European Communities questioned claims that the EC regulations had an adverse 
impact on trade. 
71. In March 2002, Peru stated that there was a l ack of political will on the part of the European 
Communities to reach a solution to this problem.  Fish meal posed no risk of BSE for human or animal 
health, but the EC measure created doubts among other countries, which resulted in a negative impact 
on fishmeal trade.  Furthermore, as the EC measure  had been extended indefinitely, it could no longer 
be justified as a provisional measure.  
72. The European Communities noted that the measur e was maintained due to demonstrated cases 
of cross-contamination detected through the EC's detection system.  One tool which could help 
resolve this issue was a reliable test which c ould distinguish mammalian meals from fishmeal.  
Unfortunately, although under development, such a t est would not be available in the near future. The 
European Communities requested Peru  to provide evidence of trade disruption as a result of the EC 
measure, as no disruption was apparent in EU trade statistics.  
73. In June 2004, Chile noted that the Europ ean Communities was reviewing the restrictive 
measures on fishmeal in cattle feed.  Lifting the ban would require the development of a diagnostic 
test which would assure all EC member States that detection of contamination of fishmeal with bone- or meat-meal would be possible.  Chile had receive d information that the diagnostic method had been 
standardized and the Food Chain and Animal He alth Committee would vote on lifting the ban in 
September 2004. The European Communities were  requested to provide further information 
concerning the possible date when the ban would be lifted.  Peru also requested a written explanation 
from the European Communities. 
74. The European Communities responded that results of the test were pending and that a written 
reply would be made available after the Food Chain and Animal Health Committee meeting in 
September 2004. 
75. In March 2005, Norway reiterated concerns regarding the EC prohibition on the use of 
fishmeal in ruminant feed due to BSE concerns.  The OIE had confirmed that there was no scientific 
evidence to support the view that fish or fishmeal co uld transmit or disseminate the disease.  Iceland, 
Norway, Peru and Chile supported the statement made  by Norway.  The decision to ban the use of 
fishmeal in feed for ruminants was introduced becau se of fear of cross contamination and of fraud in 
the blending process.  It was now possible to det ect whether animal protein was present in feed 
containing fishmeal.  Peru and Chile asked the Euro pean Communities to take into consideration the 
damage this measure caused to de veloping countries.  Fish meal was one of Peru's main export 
products.   
76. The European Communities noted that this measu re had been introduced as a control measure 
to prevent fraud and cross contamination and ha d not had serious consequences on trade.  The 
measure was modified to allow for continued use of  fishmeal for poultry and pigs.  The ban was only 
applied to feed for ruminants which was only about three per cent of the market.  The test, which 
allowed discrimination between protein of mammalian  origin and of fish origin, removed the main  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  technical scientific barrier to the lifting of the measure.  The Commission, however, was concerned 
about reopening the feed dossier, given consumer sensitivities in this area. 
96. European Communities – Geographical BSE risk assessment  
Raised by: Canada, India, Chile 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, par as. 35-36), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 
22-26) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
77. In 2001, Canada requested information on the EC geographical BSE risk assessment (GBR) 
process, the consistency of its application and how assessments could be reviewed when risks 
changed.  Canada noted that the OIE was developing a system to verify countries' own assessments of 
their BSE status, and wondered how it would rela te to the EC system.  The United States was 
concerned that the European Communities was appl ying similarly stringent measures to countries 
with significantly different risk factors, a practice which lacked scientific justification and ran counter 
to existing international standards.  It was not entirely transparent how country classifications would 
be determined nor what requirements would be applied in the meantime.  The United States had 
submitted detailed comments identifying a number of problems with the methodology and with the 
information related to the United States.  The Unite d States urged countries to take the OIE standard 
into account when developing their BSE measures.  The OIE representative clarified that the OIE would deal only with recognition of BSE freedom, not with the other four categories contained in the 
International Animal Health Code (G/SPS/ GEN/266).  The Commission on FMD and other 
Epizootics had received the mandate to develop gui delines to help member countries carry out their 
risk assessment, taking into account th e experience from GBR assessments. 
78. The European Communities explained that GBRs were based on information provided by 
trading partners in a 1998 questionnaire.  The GBR methodology had been established by the EC 
Scientific Steering Committee.  The new EC B SE-TSE measure was in conformity with the OIE 
Code, but the GBR pre-dated the current OIE Code .  Any new scientific evidence could be submitted 
to the Commission and a re-evaluation of a GBR would be considered once additional stability 
measures had been implemented, allowing three to five years to take into account the incubation 
period of BSE.  The EC representative explained the stability factors that were taken into 
consideration; these were considered on a case-by- case basis.  The European  Communities considered 
that the GBR reflected the international standard , and was willing to cooperate with Members and 
provide information.  Knowledge about this disease should be shared to minimize trade effects where 
possible. 
79. In June 2005, India expressed c oncerns regarding the categorization of India in the suspected 
list of the GBR.  The assumptions made by th e European Communities while conducting the risk 
assessment needed to be reconsidered, as BSE had ne ver been reported in Indian cattle and buffalos.  
India had made these concerns known to the Eur opean Communities on several occasions..  The EC 
categorization had the potential to disrupt India's beef  trade not only with EC member States but also 
with its other trading partners.   
80. The European Communities described its BSE impo rt regime in relation to beef and beef 
products as proportionate, non-discriminatory and scien ce-based.  The recent findings of BSE in both 
the United States and Canada had not led to me asures from the European Communities.  The EC 
classification system had been introduced due to insufficient progress in the OIE with the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 20  
 
  development of an international framework on trade in beef and beef products and BSE.  In that 
context, the European Communities encouraged all OIE members, including India, to work towards 
OIE country classifications which would allo w the European Communities to abandon its 
classification.  The European Communities clarifie d that, unless the OIE failed to classify countries, 
India's existing classification would not be revisited since it had been carried out on an independent 
basis by EC scientists.   
81. In Feburary 2006, Chile noted that while it had never registered any cases of BSE, in 2005 the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluated Chile as being a country where BSE was likely to occur or had been confirmed (Category 3 of th e GBR).  Chile disagreed with EFSA's analysis, 
particularly the time-frame and some of the da ta underpinning the analysis.  Chile had sent 
documentation to EFSA and the European Commission but had not received any reply or comment.  
EFSA's classification cast doubt on the BSE situati on in Chile and had negative impacts on Chile's 
industry.  An ad hoc group of the OIE had noted that Chile satisfied requirements for a country provisionally free of BSE.  Chile urged EFSA to recognize the OIE evaluation. 
82. The representative of the European Communities noted that while EFSA had classified Chile 
as a Category 3 risk, the European Communities remained  open to reassessing the status in the light of 
the OIE revised code on BSE.  If the OIE were to classify Chile as provisionally free, the European Communities would take this into consideration.  However only Argentina, Iceland, Singapore and 
Uruguay were in this particular cat egory.  However, even if a country was categorized as a Category 3 
risk of BSE, trade could still take place if appropriate measures were in place. 
Plant Health 
199. European Communities – Deviation from international standard for wood packing 
material 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, China, Mexico, Ph ilippines, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, 
Argentina, Chile 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as. 30-37), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 65-68, June 2005 (G/SPS/R/ 37/Rev.1, paras. 65-69), October 
2005/February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 69-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/221 and Add.1-3, G/SPS/GEN/556 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
83. In October 2004, the United States expressed  concerns over EC Directive 2004/102 which 
affected the importation of wood packing material.  The Directive required the debarking of wood 
used in packing material in addition to the heat and fumigation treatment prescribed by ISPM 15.  
During the development of ISPM 15, IPPC Memb ers had concluded that there was insufficient 
scientific evidence to justify the debarking require ment as an additional risk management measure.  
The debarking requirement would disrupt trade and undermine efforts to increase international 
harmonization.  The European Communities was request ed to reconsider its measures or postpone the 
implementation of the debarking requirements until scientific justification was available. 
84. New Zealand stated that countries or regions should not adopt unilateral measures for wood 
packing material that would cause the disruption of the global implementation of ISPM 15.  However, 
there might be technical justifications for requiring bark-free ISPM 15 compliant wood packing 
material.  Canada shared the concerns of the United States on the importance of achieving 
harmonization.  ISPM 15 allowed for the introduc tion of debarking requirements only where it could  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  be scientifically justified.  The issue of debark ing was under review by the international forestry 
quarantine research group.  The European Comm unities and those countries introducing debarking 
requirements were requested to reconsider their measures until the completion of the international 
review.  China, Mexico and the Philippines shar ed the concerns of th e United States and urged 
Members not to apply measures in excess of ISPM 15 in the absence of any scientific justification.  
Chile stated that its measures were under pub lic consultation and it welcomed comments from 
Members. 
85. The European Communities stated that EC Di rective 2000/29 established protective measures 
against the introduction and spread of harmful or ganisms to plant and plant products into the 
European Communities.  These measures were not ified on 10 November 2003 and would enter into 
force on 1 March 2005.  There was some flexibility in  the requirements for markings as specified in 
Annex 2 of ISPM 15 and in the conditions requi red for dunnage.  For wood packing material 
manufactured, repaired or recycled before 28 Februa ry 2005, the requirements for the markings would 
not come into effect until 31 December 2007.  Th e requirements for dunnage (except wood less than 6 
mm thick) and processed wood would not come into effect until 31 December 2007.  These products 
could be made from debarked wood that was free from pests.  These requirements were included to 
ensure protection against future infestation or re-i nfestation once treatment had been completed.  The 
current regulations were being considered by EC  authorities in Brussels and the Committee would be 
informed of any changes. 
86. In March 2005, the United States welcomed th e European Council's decision on 28 February 
to delay the debarking requirem ent contained in Directive 2004/1 02/EC until 1 March 2006.  Canada 
pointed out that no technical justification current ly existed for a debarking requirement.  Canada 
hoped that if a debarking requirement would be  found necessary it could be done on a multilateral 
basis within the context of ISPM 15.  The Philippine s noted that debarking should not be imposed if 
the wood packaging was already on the market or certified to have undergone  the approved treatment 
according to ISPM 15.  The Philippines asked the Eu ropean Communities to take the developments in 
international standard setting into account when th ey decided whether or not to implement their 
current legislation.  The Dominican Republic re quested clarification of the EC extension. 
87. The European Communities emphasized that the problem related to what extent ISPM 15 
permitted debarking.  The European Communities had a very good disease status with respect to certain nematodes commonly found in wood pack aging material elsewhere in the world.  
Notwithstanding the views of EC member States that  this was a valid measure, the Commission, in 
light of protests from many third countries, had take n a decision to postpone the measure for one year. 
88. In June 2005, the United States emphasized th at it was still concerned about the pending 
implementation of this new directive, which woul d affect US agricultural and commercial products 
packaged in wood material exported to the Europ ean Communities.  The United States reiterated its 
request for a detailed pest risk analysis or scientific  evaluation justifying this additional requirement.  
Canada suggested extension of the delay until th e IPPC had reviewed and assessed the technical 
justification for this requirement..  In addition, Cana da encouraged parties to work together to try to 
pursue a harmonized approach for the regulation of wood packaging, irrespective of the outcome of 
the IPPC review.  The Philippines invited Members to wait for further information on the EC risk 
analysis and related technical justification for de barking.  The Dominican Republic and Jamaica noted 
the difficulties experienced by many developing countries exporting to the European Communities, 
particularly in their efforts to meet the requireme nts of ISPM 15. Argentina and Chile noted that a 
working group in the IPPC was working on the issue of debarking.  
89. The European Communities recalled that the European Commission had notified the measure 
to the SPS Committee almost one year befo re its adoption by the European Council 
(G/SPS/N/EEC/221 and Add.1-3; G/SPS/GEN/556).  Although the European Communities was G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 22  
 
  satisfied with the scientific basis for the debark ing requirement of Directive 2004/102/EC, it had 
postponed its entry into force as a consequence of the numerous comments received from several Members with regard to the potential for very serious disruption of trade, in order to review and strengthen its scientific justification.  The Eur opean Commission was currently putting together a 
technical dossier with the intention of presenting it to the IPPC International Forestry Quarantine 
Research Group in November 2005. 
90. In February 2006, the United States and Canada  welcomed the delayed implementation of the 
requirement that imported wood packaging materi al be debarked (Directive 2004/102), and the 
European Communities commitment to  work through the IPPC to a ddress issues related to ISPM 15 
based on scientific evidence.  The representative of the Philippines noted that the Philippines 
continued to be interested in monitoring  further developments of this issue. 
91. The European Communities clarified that the implementation of ISPM-15 was not postponed, 
but only the debarking requirement  This postpon ement decision resulted, in part, from previous 
discussions in the SPS Committee about the potential serious disruption of trade and the need to 
convince trading partners of the scientific and technical basis for this requirement. 
209. European Communities -  Plant health directive 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 40-41) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
92. In March 2005, the United States noted under th e new EC plant health Directive 2000/29/EC, 
as amended, and Regulation 1756/2004 the inspection rates for plant products would significantly 
increase in relation to previous years.  The increase in inspections was likely to slow the release of 
products to importers, thus increasing the potential fo r spoilage and damage.  The United States also 
sought clarification on how EC member States had provided the data on impor ted consignments and 
inspections, as required under Regulation 1756/2004. 
93. The European Communities clarified that the overall purpose of the new Regulation was to 
reduce the level of phytosanitary controls on impor ts of certain plants, plants products and other 
objects listed in part B of Annex V to Council Di rective 2000/29/EC.  However, there would be a 
period of adjustment in moving to wards this new system during which controls would likely increase.  
A bilateral meeting had permitted discussions of the impact of the legislation with representatives of 
the US industry and EC authorities were making as qui ck a transition as possible to the new system of 
controls, taking into account the past record of  US fresh produce exports.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  Other Concerns 
219. European Communities - Eurep Gap requirements for bananas 
Raised by: St. Vincent and the Grenadines 
Supported by: Argentina, Ecuador, Jamaica, Mexico, Peru,  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 16-20) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
94. In June 2005, St. Vincent and the Grenadines re ported that EurepGap certification, introduced 
in 1997,  had now been made a condition for cont inued trade into UK supermarkets.  Some of the 
measures in the EurepGap certification programme  were clearly within the scope of the SPS 
Agreement.  Jamaica indicated similar problems with EurepGap requirements for fresh fruit and 
vegetable entry into the European Communities.  Si nce a reading of the EC food and feed regulation 
indicated that the Eurep/Gap requirements were private sector requirements, Jamaica asked what 
recourse was available to exporting countries.  
95. The European Communities clarified that EurepGap was a private sector consortium 
representing the interests of major retailers.  Even if these standards, in certain cases, exceeded the 
requirements of EC SPS standards, the European Co mmission could not object to them as they did not 
conflict with EC legislation.  The European Co mmunities encouraged developing country Members, 
and particularly least-developed country Member s, to discuss this issue with non-governmental 
organizations since, in many respects, the Eure pGap requirements reflected their concerns.   
96. Peru recalled that  Article 13 of the SPS Agreement referred to implementation by non-
governmental entities within the territory of the Member.  Ecuador noted concerns regarding the 
impact of this issue on trade towards the European  Communities.  Mexico indicated that it was only 
when SPS measures were adopted by governmental authorities that a Member had the obligation to 
ensure that governmental and non-governmental en tities involved were implementing them properly, 
as provided for in Article 13.  Annex 3 of the TB T Agreement established a code of good practice for 
non-governmental standard-setting in stitutions developing food quality st andards.  This code had been 
accepted by many of these organizations.  Mexico  suggested that the SPS Committee examine these 
provisions of the TBT Agreement before reaching any conclusion on the issue.  
97. Argentina noted that international agreements existed to ensure that SPS measures were not 
unnecessarily stringent so as to act as barriers to international trade, and countries had devoted 
substantial resources to participate in standards development and implementation.  If the private 
sector adopted unnecessarily restrictive standards affecting trade, and countries had no forum in 
which to advocate rationalization of these standards, twenty years of discussions in international fora 
would have been wasted.  Argentina argued that the rational and legal aspects of these kinds of 
regulations had to be addressed. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 24  
 
  GUATEMALA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY GUATEMALA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other Animal Health Concerns 
210. Guatemala - Restrictions on imports of chicken meat  
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 28-29) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
98. In March 2005, Mexico recalled that his c ountry had raised a concern on Guatemala's 
restrictions on imports of chicken meat.  Progress towards a solution to the problem had been made 
recently and Mexico would continue to monitor the is sue bilaterally and in the context of the Regional 
Organization for Agricultural Health (OIRSA).   Guatemala confirmed its willingness to continue 
working on this issue with Mexico. 
Plant Health 211. Guatemala - Restrictions on the transit of avocados  
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 28-29) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
99. In March 2005, Mexico observed that Guatemal a had imposed restrictions on the transit of 
avocados.  Progress had been made recently in fi nding a solution to the problem, and Mexico would 
monitor the issue bilaterally and in the context of  the Regional Organization for Agricultural Health 
(OIRSA).  Guatemala confirmed its willingness to  continue working on this issue with Mexico.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
  INDIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA  
Other Concerns 
192. India – Non-notification of various SPS measures 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities, New Zealand 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras.  52-54), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 
80-82), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev. 1, paras. 69-70), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 48-50) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/R/33 (paras. 23-31) 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
100. In June 2004, the United States indicated that India's non-notification, or late notification, of 
SPS measures  had created unnecessary trade disruptions  and an uncertain environment for trade.  
India was requested to comply with obligations  under the SPS Agreement by notifying all its SPS 
measures to the WTO and providing a reasonable peri od of time for Members to review and comment 
on the notifications.  Australia, the European Co mmunities and New Zealand shared the concerns 
raised by the United States.  India stated that it att ached great importance to th e issue of transparency.  
With respect to India's Plant Qu arantine Order 2003, statements had already been provided to the 
European Communities and the issue had been discu ssed at the March Committee meeting.  India had 
notified the measure on 4 March 2004 with a 60-day comment period and had ensured that trade was 
not restricted because of the lack of timeliness of the notification.  
101. In October 2004, the United States expressed continued concern over India's non-notification 
of measures which created uncertainty among US exporters.  India was requested to notify its SPS measures and to allow a reasonable period of time for comment.  The European Communities shared the concerns of the United States and at the sa me time urged all Members to notify their SPS 
measures.  A bilateral meeting had been held with India and the European Communities were 
optimistic of improvements in India's transparency ob ligations.  India stated that it would ensure that 
it complied with its obligations. 
102. In March 2005, the United States again expressed concern regarding India's non-compliance 
with  its transparency obligations under the SPS Agreement andrequested India to suspend the 
implementation of measures on dairy products and pet food until a WTO notification was made available and a reasonable time provided to Members for their review and comment.  The European 
Communities shared the concerns of the United States.   India stated that it would take the necessary 
steps to notify SPS requirements as soon as possible. 
103. In June 2005, the  United States noted that a lthough India had  improved its coordination on 
SPS issues, some Indian departments continued to note notify   SPS measures implemented. The United States requested that India notify new and revised food regulations and import conditions.   
104. The European Communities noted that it had also been adversely affected by India's lack of 
notification of some SPS rules governing imports of agricultural products.  Progress in terms of transparency had been limited to the phytosanitary sector;  legislation governing animal health and 
production were not systematically notified.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 26  
 
  105. India explained that it had recently notified th e establishment of three separate enquiry points 
with clearly delineated responsibilities.  These e fforts had achieved greater coordination among 
agencies, as demonstrated by the number of recent no tifications that had been submitted at an early 
stage in the development of the regulation and with a due period for comments. 
INDONESIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns Related to FMD 
111. Indonesia - FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, par as. 92-93) (see also item 132), October 2003 
(G/SPS/R/31, paras. 35-36), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 34-35), October 
2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 53-55, Marc h 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 48-
49), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras 175-176). 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/240 
Solution: Not reported 
 
106. In October 2001, Argentina noted it had raised concerns about Indonesia's FMD restrictions 
on certain products.  Although Indonesia had informed  Argentina that certain products had been re-
classified, the changes had not been implemente d and Argentina was still unable to export the 
products concerned, mainly vegetables and corn.  In donesia stated that the ban on Argentine corn had 
been lifted as of August 2001.  Indonesia looked forward to holding further bilateral discussions. 
107. In October 2003, Argentina recalled that I ndonesian restrictions went beyond the OIE 
recommendations (G/SPS/GEN/240) and included products not affected by FMD, i.e., cereals.  Argentina requested Indonesia to provide scientific  evidence to justify the measures or else lift the 
measures.  Argentina had provided documentation in an  informal bilateral meeting with Indonesia and 
proposed a visit of experts to resolve the issue.  Indonesia stated that FMD was a serious risk as 
Indonesia was free of the disease.  The ban was periodically evaluated and could be temporary.  A visit by experts from Indonesia was being consider ed.  Progress on this issue was being made in 
consultations with Argentina and the Committee would be informed. 
108. In June 2004, Argentina stated that Argentine bovine meat continued to be prohibited despite 
having made several requests to Indonesia's veterinary service.  Indonesia required that bovine 
products come from areas free from FMD for the past twelve months, and where vaccination had not 
been carried out in the previous  three consecutive years.  These measures went beyond official OIE 
recommendations.  Indonesia had not provided any scientific evidence to support these restrictive 
measures.  Indonesia noted that the matter had been discussed in bilateral meetings with Argentina.  
The importation of ruminants and ruminant products from countries with endemic status or FMD-free 
with vaccination was prohibited pending further deci sions by the Indonesian expert commissions of 
veterinary public health and animal health. 
109. In October 2004, Argentina reported that I ndonesia continued to prohibit imports of 
Argentine beef.  Indonesia was requested to comp ly with OIE recommendations or submit a risk  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
  analysis to justify its measures.  Brazil shared Ar gentina's concerns.  Indonesia had prohibited imports 
of soybean and soybean products from FMD-free areas with vaccination in Brazil.  Indonesia's 
measures were inconsistent with OIE guidelines and recommendations and Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement.   
110. Indonesia explained that any country wishing to export to Indonesia must be free of FMD and 
rudderpost as stipulated in the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture Decree 1992.  Countries meeting 
these requirements were allowed to export to Indonesi a.  With respect to Argentina, imports were 
allowed when Argentina was decl ared FMD-free in 2000.  However,  imports were suspended when 
there was an outbreak of the disease.  Argentina a nd Brazil had not been declared FMD-free without 
vaccination by the OIE.  The same conditions al so applied to soybean and soybean products and 
imports would be allowed into Indonesia on ce the outbreaks were brought under control. 
111. In March 2005, Argentina argued that Indonesia's re strictions were  inconsistent with Articles 
2.2, 5.1 and 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.  Not only  did Indonesia's requirements exceed the provisions 
of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the OI E, but they were even less justified now that 
Argentina had recovered its status of free from FM D with vaccination in the region north of latitude 
42°.  Indonesia noted that it had submitted a protocol  for the approval and inspection of exports of 
meat products from Argentina and was wa iting for the response from Argentina. 
112. In June 2005, Argentina recalled that Indonesia's requirement that the country of origin had 
been FMD-free for at least 12 months prior to sh ipment,and had not vaccinated against the disease in 
three years, exceeded the OIE Code , especially as Argentina had regained its FMD-free status.  Brazil 
reportedsimilar experien ced problems with exports of meat and meat products to Indonesia.  
Indonesia indicated the concerns would be forwarded to the relevant authorities.   
113. In February 2006, Argentina noted that Indon esian health authorities had been invited to 
inspect the entire Argentine production chain for meat .  Brazil noted that restrictions remained on 
products such as heat-processed meats, although the technology protected the product from FMD infection.   
114. Indonesia clarified that it had a policy of maxi mum security for imported products of animal 
origin based on two criteria, animal health and vete rinary public health.  The overall objective was to 
maintain Indonesia’s status as a country free fro m all major diseases such as FMD and BSE, and to 
protect consumers' health and spiritual comfort through assuring the safety of animals distributed in Indonesia.  Indonesia undertook on site reviews of potential exporters in order to collect direct and detailed information as a prerequisite for import au thorisation.  In December 2005, Indonesia had 
notified Argentina of its intention to visit Argen tina in order to undertake an on site review.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 28  
 
  ISRAEL 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL  
Plant Health 233. Israel - Absence of phytosanitary import legislation 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005/Februar y 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 39-40) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
115. In October 2005, the European Communities reporte d that this trade concern had been raised 
bilaterally on several occasions since 1984.  Dr aft import legislation had been provided to the 
European Communities in November 2003.  Its re vision, which addressed some of the comments 
made by the European Communities in May 2004, ha d been issued in January 2005 to be presented 
for revision, approval and publication by the Israe li competent authorities.  However the legislation 
was still at the draft stage, despite repeated promises by Israel that a final text would be published in 
2005.  The European Communities considered that th e lack of phytosanitary legislation contravened 
Article 7 of the SPS Agreement and created unpredic tability for EC exporters of plants and plant 
products.  Furthermore, the draft import legislation maintained the system of import licenses and permits currently imposed by Israel.   
116. Israel indicated that these concerns would be transmitted to the relevant Israeli authorities and 
addressed as soon as possible. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses  Concerns Related to TSEs 232. Israel - Import restrictions on EC beef due to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005/Februar y 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 41-42) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
117. In October 2005, the European Communities noted that exports of EC beef into Israel were 
currently allowed only from a limited number of EC  member States and restricted to calves younger 
than 6-8 months.  No native case of BSE had been detected in some of the EC member States whose 
beef imports were prohibited.  BSE protective me asures were equally implemented through the whole 
EC territory and equally applied to beef for cons umption within the European Communities and beef 
for export.  With regard to the restriction to calves younger than 6-8 months, amendments to the Terrestrial Animal Health Code adopted by the OIE in May 2005 included the addition of deboned 
skeletal muscle meat of animals less than 30 mont hs to the list of products which could be safely 
traded, under certain conditions, regardless of th e BSE status of the exporting country.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
  118. Israel reported that his country had alread y engaged bilaterally with the European 
Communities on this issue in order to find a mutually satisfactory solution.  
JAPAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN  
Food Safety 
212. Japan - Positive list system for pesticides, veterinary drugs and feed additives MRLs 
Raised by: China, United States 
Supported by: Philippines 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 19-21), Octobe r 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 49-51 and 61-63) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
119. In March 2005, China noted that the proposed adoption of a single standard limit of 0.1ppm 
for 700 types of pesticides, veterinary drugs and f eed additives for which no specific residue limit had 
been established would jeopardize Chinese exports of vegetables to Japan.  China requested that Japan 
assess the possible impact of such an amendment on exports to Japan , provide opportunities to discuss 
the results of this assessment and consider soluti ons to minimize its impact.  Japan should also 
provide the science-based risk assessment that had led to the amendment of the MRLs.  Should there 
be any notification in the future on this issue, Japan should provide a comment period of at least 60 
days as of the date of distribution and extend th is upon request, and allow an adequate adaptation 
period in accordance with the Doha decision.  Chin a also sought clarifications on Japan's detection 
methods for residues.  The Philippines supported China's concerns on this issue and requested 
relevant information from Japan in order to assess the possible implications of this proposed 
amendment on the Philippines' exports. 
120. Japan clarified that the its new positive list sy stem, based on the revised Food Sanitation Law, 
was aimed at regulating the distribution of foods th at contained agricultural chemicals, veterinary 
drugs and feed additives for which no MRLs had yet been established.  Before the positive list system 
entered into force, the Ministry of Health, Labo ur and Welfare would compare its provisional MRLs 
with the Codex standards. 
121. In February 2006, the United States reported th at in June 2005, Japan had notified its final 
draft of thousands of new provisional maximum r esidue limits (MRLs) for over 700 pesticides, 
veterinary drugs and feed additives covering all basic commodity groups.  In November 2005, the 
provision of a six-month transition period before official enforcement of the provisional MRLs had 
been notified.  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fo restry and Fisheries of Japan (MAFF) had announced 
in December 2005 the implementation and enforcem ent of the provisional MRLs on rice, wheat, 
barley and possibly other commodities.  The United States was concerned about the effect of these 
new MRLs on agricultural exports to Japan and re quested Japan to clarify its plans regarding the 
enforcement of these MRLs.  
122. China requested Japan to grant at least an additional 18 months for developing country 
Members to adjust the application of agriculture chemicals, conduct training and education activities, 
provide guidance to farmers and make laboratory preparations.  Although Japan argued that it had 
taken three years to prepare the draft of its positi ve list system and had already notified this three G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 30  
 
  times, each time the number of MRLs and produc t coverage varied.  A two-year adaptation period 
was appropriate to allow the decline of pesticide residues in soil and air after their use had ceased.  
Moreover, considering the number of MRLs iden tified, a phased introduction of the new MRL 
requirements was necessary.  Furt hermore, Japan had published only some of the testing methods 
used to develop the MRLs, and many of these testi ng methods were only illustrated by flow charts.  
China requested that Japan notify in advance all available and newly developed testing technology 
and methods for all provisional MRLs listed in the positive list system, and provide a 60-day 
comment period and a 6-month adaptation period. 
123. Australia expressed appreciation for Japan's collaborative attitude when developing this 
comprehensive new positive list and encouraged Japan  to provide some clarification regarding the 
nature of testing requirements. 
124. Japan clarified that, in accord ance with the amendment of the Food Sanitation Law of May 
2003, the positive list system for pesticides, veteri nary drugs and feed additives in food would be 
implemented as of May 2006 as had been officially  announced in December 2005.  From August to 
October 2005, Japan had explained to governmental  organisations of countries exporting rice, wheat 
and barley to Japan that the new inspection system  was to be implemented in December 2005.  Japan 
could not extend the adaptation period as the framewo rk of the system had been published three times 
since 2003.  The final draft had been released in  November 2005, and Japan considered that a six-
month implementation period was sufficient.  Japan  had developed and published analytical methods 
for more than 500 substances when developing the positive list system a nd would continue to 
establish and publish analytical methods for additiona l substances.  Japan would provide China with 
technical advice about analytical methods if requested.   
221. Japan - Safety insurance and quality improve ment standards for feed  and feed additives 
(G/SPS/N/JPN/128) 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 78-79) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
125. In March 2005, China raised concerns that Japan's revision of standards for Astaxanthin 
lacked scientific justification.  China was not awar e of any evidence of harmful effects and asked if 
Japan had found Astaxanthin harmful to fish at certain levels.   
126. Japan stated that scientific data was insufficien t and that no international standards had been 
established so far.  Some Members had regulations to  restrict the maximum dose of Astaxanthin to be 
administered to finfish.  Therefore, as a provisional measure, Japan had set an upper limit for Astaxanthin, which was added to feeds, based on SPS  measures applied by other Members.  Japan had 
taken into account technical and economic feasibility  when deciding the upper limit.  Japan was 
willing to reconsider its regulation when new inte rnational standards or scientific evidence on this 
issue were presented.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns Related to TSEs 
213. Japan - Restrictions on beef  imports  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 30-31), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 53-55) , October 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 43-45) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 10-14 
Solution: Not reported 
 
127. In March 2005, the United States emphasized its concerns regarding Japan's continuing 
restrictions on US beef based on the detection, in  December 2003, of a single case of BSE in an 
imported cow.  It recalled its ongoing cooperation w ith Japan, over the past 14 months, to resolve all 
scientific and health concerns about the safety of  US beef.,  The October 2004 bilateral agreement 
required the United States to provide all the scientif ic information requested by Japan and to allow 
access for Japanese technical officials to US facilities.  Effective firewalls had been in place for many 
years to prevent the establishment and spread of BSE within the United States.  In response to the 
single case of BSE, the United States had implemented several additional regulatory measures to further strengthen existing safeguards, had comple ted a comprehensive epidemiological investigation 
and taken many other actions described in the report of the March meeting.  Given that there had been 
no indigenous cases of  BSE reported, there wa s sufficient scientific evidence for Japan to 
immediately remove restrictions on US beef and beef products.    
128. Japan indicated that the US beef  issue was one of the most important policy agenda items for 
the Japanese government.  Japan recalled that the October 2004 bilateral framework agreement to 
resume the two-way trade in beef was subject to the respective domestic approval processes including 
deliberation by each Member's food safety comm issions.  The Japanese Food Safety Commission 
would undertake a risk assessment for imports of  US beef as soon as it had completed its risk 
assessment of domestic BSE measures.  
129. In June 2005, the United States emphasized ove r the past 17 months, the United States had 
provided Japan with extensive technical informa tion on all aspects of its BSE-related protection 
measures, internationally recognized as effectiv e and appropriate, for both food safety and animal 
health.  The United States stressed that, according to the revised OIE standards, the recent detection of 
one BSE-infected animal blocked from the food and feed chain could not be used as an excuse to 
restrict imports of US beef products.  The Eur opean Communities invited Japan to replace its import 
ban with specific requirements in accordance with  OIE standards.   Japan reported that the Food 
Safety Commission had completed the risk assessmen t on domestic beef on 6 May 2005 and was now 
carrying out the risk assessment on US beef.  
130. In February 2006, the European Communities re ported that Japan had recently reopened its 
market for beef exports from some EC member Stat es, but in accordance with Articles 2.3 and 3.3 of 
the SPS Agreement, Japan should reopen its market to bovine products from al l EC member States.  
The protective BSE measures, including the implemen tation and enforcement of the feed ban, the 
removal of specified risk materials and the elaboration of an identification, registration and 
traceability system for bovines and their products able to warrantee the age of each bovine, could fully 
satisfy the safety of consumers anywhere in the wo rld.  The United States noted that Japan had re-G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 32  
 
  opened its market for some US beef products but ma intained scientifically unjustified restrictions on 
other products, inconsistent w ith international standards. 
131. Japan observed that numerous countries still suspended beef imports from BSE-infected 
countries and that international standards on BSE ch anged every year.  On the basis of its risk 
analysis, Japan had decided to reduce its beef  imports from a few BSE-affected countries. 
Concerns Related to FMD 222.  Japan - Import suspension of heat-processed straw and forage for feed  
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 33-34) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
132. 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.   
133. 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 un til the Chinese Government addressed these issues.   
Plant Health 
100. Japan - Import measures on fire blight 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: New Zealand, European Communities 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras.  27-29), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 9-
11), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 36- 38), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 
52-53) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally; G/SPS/GEN/299, WT/DS245/R, WT/DS245/AB/R 
Solution: Consultations requested on 1 Ma rch 2002;  panel requested on 22 May 2002;  
panel established 3 June 2002; panel re port issued 15 July 2003, Appellate 
Body report issued 26 November 2003, adopted 10 December 2003.  Article 
21.5 panel and Article 22.6 arbitration established on 30 July 2004.  Article 
21.5 panel report issued 23 June 2005.  Mutually agreed solution reported 2 February 2005. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
  134. In July 2001, the United States maintained that  Japan's requirements for imported apples were 
unduly restrictive.  The United States and Japan ha d agreed on joint scientific research on apples and 
fire blight, and the United States was disappointed that  Japan had not relaxed its import restrictions in 
accordance with the results of the research.  New Zealand agreed that  Japan's phytosanitary measures 
with respect to fire blight were not technically ju stifiable and should be modified accordingly.  New 
Zealand intended to engage Japan in further bilate ral discussions on this issue.  Chile requested that 
the follow-up to this situation be reported to the Committee.  Japan confirme d that the joint research 
had been completed, and indicated that a risk an alysis was being conducted based on the results.  
There were some difficulties in finalizing the eval uation based solely on these results.  Japan desired 
to continue the technical discussion between plant health authorities of both countries. 
135. In October 2001, the United States reported on  bilateral discussions on Japan's quarantine 
procedures on US apples.  Although joint scientific research demonstrated that mature symptom-less fruit was not a pathway for the transmission of fire  blight, a mutually acceptable technical solution 
had not been found.  The United States was cons idering what further steps, including dispute 
settlement, it could take on the matter.  New Z ealand announced it would also seek bilateral 
discussions with Japan on its import requirements for apples.  Japan stated that in order to complete 
the technical evaluation, additional information ha d been requested from the United States. Further 
bilateral contacts between the US and Japan ese experts were considered appropriate. 
136. In March 2002, the United States recalled that Jap an’s quarantine restrictions prohibited apple 
imports from orchards in which any fire blight  had been detected and required: three annual 
inspections of US orchards for the presence of fire blight, disqualification from export if fire blight 
were detected in a 500-meter bu ffer zone around the orchard, a nd post-harvest treatment with 
chlorine.  The United States considered that these restrictions were not consistent with Japan's 
obligations under Article 11 of the GATT, or unde r the SPS Agreement.  The United States had 
requested consultations under Ar ticles 1 and 4 of the Dispute Se ttlement Understanding on 1 March 
2002.  New Zealand and the European Communities also  expressed the view that  Japan's restrictions 
on apples were more trade restrictive than necessary a nd stated their interest in a resolution of this 
issue.  
137. Japan explained that the risk from the entry of fi re blight was very serious.  The United States 
had not provided Japan with sufficient scientific ev idence to amend its phytosanitary measures.  At a 
bilateral expert meeting in October 2001, Japan ha d identified the data that was needed and Japan 
hoped that the technical data would be provided by th e United States so as to al low a resolution of this 
issue.  
138. In June 2002, the United States reported that hi s country had requested the establishment of a 
dispute resolution panel with respect to Japan's meas ures related to fire blight.  New Zealand indicated 
that Japan's measures lacked scientific justificati on and limited NZ exports of horticultural products. 
New Zealand and the European Communities indicated  that their countries shared the US concerns 
and would participate in the dispute resolution proced ure as third parties.  Japan indicated that during 
the bilateral consultations held following the US  request, Japan had indicated its willingness to 
consider relevant data submitted by the United St ates, however nothing had been provided.  Fire 
blight was a serious plant quarantine disease which did not occur in Japan and which could severely 
damage the production of apples, pears and other fruit s.  Japan's measures were  indispensable in order 
to prevent the entry of fire blight, and were fu lly justified on the basis of scientific evidence. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 34  
 
  133. Japan – Official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables 
Raised by: United States, New Zealand 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  27-30), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 
59-62), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, para s. 55-57), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, 
paras. 61-63), October 2003 (G/SPS /R/31, paras.19-20), March 2004 
(G/SPS/R/33, paras. 59-62), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 18-21), October 
2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 42-44), Ma rch 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 
61-64) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/357,  G/SPS/N/JPN/132 
Solution: Not reported 
 
139. In June 2002, the United States indicated th at Japan continued to impose costly and 
unjustified quarantine actions when pests were det ected on imported US fruits and vegetables, even 
though the same species were commonly found in Japan.  In many instances these actions included 
treatment that damaged and destroyed the commodity in question.  These practices lacked a scientific 
basis and were inconsistent with IPPC standards on official control and risk assessment for quarantine 
pests.  The result was an arbitrary and unpredictabl e system facing US horticultural exports to Japan.  
The United States supported Japan's efforts to bri ng its plant laws into line with international 
standards and hoped that bilateral technical discussion s would result in the termination of unjustified 
requirements. The European Communities supported th e US statement.  New Zealand noted concerns 
with Japan's continuing practice of fumigating consi gnments of fresh products due to the interception 
of pests that did not meet the definition of quarantine pests under the IPPC.  
140. Japan recalled that during bilateral consultati ons with the United States in November 2001, 
the United States had requested Japan to abolish fu migation upon detection of California red scale and 
Fuller rose weevil in US produce, on the grounds that these were non-quarantine pests endemic in 
Japan.  However, California red scale was under dom estic control in Japan as a target pest of 
forecasting programmes and was therefore subject to fumigation if detected at import inspection.  
Fuller rose weevil had limited detection with only three points within Japan and was under 
government-oriented control aimed at eradication.   It was not possible under these conditions to 
exclude those species from quarantine pests.  Jap an noted that they remained open to further 
consultations. 
141. In November 2002, New Zealand expressed concern with Japan's official control restrictions, 
detailed in G/SPS/GEN/357.  New Zealand requested Japan to confirm that it would not take any 
action, such as fumigation, on any pest found on imported produce if that pest was already present in Japan but not under official control as defined by the IPPC  The United States recalled its concerns over the basis and application of Japan's phytosanitary  legislation, in particular with respect to 
horticultural products that continued to face unjustified quarantine actions at Japan's ports of entry.  
Even when Japan required no domestic quarantine tr eatment for the same species of pests, the 
treatment imposed on imported produce include d fumigation which in many cases ruined the 
products.  The United States considered Japan's actions to be highly disruptive of trade.  Australia and 
the European Communities expressed their concern regarding Japan's official control restrictions and 
supported the statements made by Ne w Zealand and the United States. 
142. Japan recognized that the IPPC standards shoul d be one of the basis in a possible future 
quarantine system for Japan.  Japan was examining whether its appropriate le vel of protection could 
be maintained by applying plant quarantine measures in line with the new IPPC definition, taking into 
account Japan's climate and the large volume of impor ts into Japan.  A number of pests were presently  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
  under study and although a final c onclusion had not yet been reached, discussions were underway to 
identify practical measures to reduce the effects of Japan's official control measures on international 
trade. 
143. In April 2003, New Zealand stress ed that Japan's policy was not consistent with the relevant 
international definition in ISPM-5 of the IPPC and Supplement No.1.  Bilateral discussions between 
New Zealand and Japan continued and New Zealand requested  a policy statement  from Japan by 1 
January 2003.  To date, no such statement had been forthcoming.  Japan had still not brought its 
phytosanitary measures in line with IPPC definitions and guidelines.  The United States stated that it 
shared the concerns and frustrations of New Zeal and and continued to experience trade disruptions 
due to Japan's phytosanitary legislation and unju stified quarantine actions.  The United States had 
requested information on which pests were considered  quarantine risks but did not receive a reply.  
Australia and the European Commun ities shared the concerns of New Zealand and the United States. 
144. Japan stated that it was under no obligation to make a policy statement regarding non-
quarantine pests, however, in the interest of tran sparency, Japan would provide a statement.  Japan 
respected international rules, including IPPC guidelines, and took appropriate measures where 
necessary on the basis of its national plant protection laws.  Further examination was necessary to see 
if Japan's current measures were consistent w ith international standards and representatives from 
outside government would be invite d to review the situation.   
145. In June 2003, New Zealand indicated that it was  pleased to learn that Japan was reviewing its 
system  in order to change it.  The United Stat es stated it was disappointed with the discriminatory 
nature of Japan's measures, its failure to notif y internal regulations and the general lack of 
transparency within its system.  Australia express ed support for statements made by New Zealand and 
the United States.  Japan reported that bilatera l consultations had been  conducted and further 
examination would be necessary befo re conclusions could be drawn. 
146. In October 2003, New Zealand reported that there had not been any response from Japan 
since bilateral contacts in April and June 2003.  Japan responded that it was seeking to resolve the 
issue through technical discussions between relevant national experts.  A bilateral meeting was to be 
held in November to discuss orchard controls a nd pre-clearance inspection systems.  Japan reported 
that in June it had established a consultative group consisting of different st akeholders to examine 
whether its measures were consistent with internatio nal standards.  This group had already met three 
times. 
147. In March 2004, New Zealand noted that in November 2003, it presented a submission on its 
concerns as part of Japan’s review of its plan t quarantine processes and looked forward to having 
these concerns addressed in an early and trade fac ilitating manner.  The United States reported that on 
8 October 2003, the United States had presented its concerns on the classification of eleven specific species as quarantine pests to the Japanese plant protection division.  In contrast to internationally 
accepted definitions of quarantine pests, Japan's le gal definition of pests included pests that were 
already present in Japan and not subject to official  control.  As a result, imported products faced 
discriminatory treatment compared to domestic produc ts since they were subjected to fumigation for 
pests that already existed in Japan .  Japan was requested to provide clarification and information on 
actions taken to eradicate and contain the eleven specific pests and their di stribution in Japan, and on 
its efforts to align its plant health laws with in ternational standards.  The European Communities 
supported the concerns of New Zealand and the United States. 
148. 
Japan recalled that at the last Committee meeting, Japan and New Zealand had agreed to 
resolve the issue from a technical perspective and on a case-by-case basis.  As a result of bilateral 
discussions, new quarantine measures were to be intr oduced in May 2004, based on trials of orchard 
control for Fuller Rose Weevil on kiwifruit.  Furthe rmore, quarantine trials for reducing fumigation G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 36  
 
  on lettuce from the United States were conducted from July 2003 to March 2004 and the results were 
under evaluation.  Japan had received requests for 39 species of pests from New Zealand and 11 
species from the United States to be designated as non- quarantine pests.  Members' concerns on the 
inconsistency of Japan’s plant h ealth laws with international st andards were under review.  The 
consultative group on plant quarantine established by Japan's plant quarantine authorities had held 
four meetings but experienced a delay in comp iling its recommendations.  The consultative group 
meetings would be reactivated to work on reco mmendations which would be considered by plant 
quarantine authorities for further action. 
149. In June 2004, New Zealand welcomed the conclusi on of Japan's review of its plant quarantine 
regime and urged that the recommendations of  Japan's Plant Quaran tine Review Committee, 
particularly the recommendation that Japan move towa rds international practice, be adopted promptly.  
This issue had first been raised in the SPS Comm ittee in March 2002, but  bilateral exchanges had 
been occurring since 1986 between New Zealand and Jap an on this issue.  With the conclusion of the 
plant quarantine review, New Zealand expected that  Japan would expand its non-quarantine pest list 
to reflect those pests already in Japan and not unde r official control.  Although the Plant Quarantine 
Review Committee's report had not yet been consid ered domestically and implementation timelines 
had not been published, New Zealand hoped that a mutually acceptable solution could be reached 
soon.   
150. The United States recalled that it had provided an update at the last Committee meeting on 
Japan's policy for requiring fumigation for non-qu arantine pests, even when these pests were 
commonly found in Japan.  Japan's written response to  the US request on the eleven pests recognized 
the necessity of taking into account the relevant standards of the IPPC when conducting pest risk 
assessments (PRAs), was welcomed.  ISPM 2, "Guidelin es for Pest  Risk Assessment", indicated that 
the PRA process should end when, in the course of th e analysis, a potential quarantine pest had been 
identified as present and not subject to official controls.  The European Communities shared the 
concerns of New Zealand and the United States.   
151. Japan indicated that its authorities were iden tifying measures which would maintain Japan's 
appropriate level of protection a nd be consistent with  relevant international standards.  The 
Consultative Group on Plant Quarantine Systems published its report on 21 May 2004, including 
input from national stakeholders and foreign gove rnments.  The Consultative Group recommended 
that plant quarantine measures should be based on scientific risk assessments, following IPPC 
guidelines.  In the review of existing PRAs, th e plant quarantine authorities had focused on high 
priority pests designated by other Members.  As a first step, Japan planned to notify these measures by 
December 2004.   
152. In October 2004, New Zealand asked Japan whet her it had adopted the necessary procedures 
to expand its non-quarantine pest list to include th ose pests already present in Japan that were not 
under official control as defined by the IPPC.  The United States commented that they looked forward 
to reviewing the report on Japan’s plant quarantine regime at the end of the year.  The European 
Communities expressed support for the statements made by New Zealand and the United States and urged Japan to align its phytosanitary measures with IPPC definitions and guidelines.    Japan replied 
that Members would be notified of the changes in its legislation in December 2004 and amendments 
would be made no later than March 2005. 
153. In March 2005, New Zealand reiterated its con cerns and welcomed Japan's announcement of 
expansion of its non quarantine pest list through th e addition of 46 pests, especially as this list 
included a number of pests of specific concern to New Zealand.  New Zealand encouraged Japan to 
implement these proposed changes as soon as its dom estic regulatory procedures allowed, and in a 
manner that significantly addressed its concerns.  Ne w Zealand also requested information on Japan's 
proposed timetable for carrying out risk assessments on other pests of concern to New Zealand with a  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
  view to their inclusion on Japan's non-quarantine pest list as soon as practicable.  The United States 
and the European Communities shared  the concern that Japan's system s and procedures needed to be 
further modified to conform to international norms and practices while welcoming Japan's efforts to 
revise its plant quarantine process. 
154. Japan noted that it had notified the draft amendment of the ordinance modifying non-
quarantine pest lists in December 2004 (G/SPS/ N/JPN/132).  Comments from Members had been 
accepted for 60 days between 4 January and 4 March 2005.  Domestic comments had been collected 
between 27 December 2004 and 25 February 2005.  These comments were presently under 
examination by the plant quarantine authorities of Japan and it would take approximately one month 
to amend the relevant regul ations, if approved.   
172. Japan – Restrictions on imports of mangoes 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: India 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras.  34-35), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 
25-26), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, par as. 65-67), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 25-26), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras 81-82). 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Resolved 
 
155. Brazil indicated that it had been seeking approval to export mangoes to Japan for 18 years.  
Japan demanded steam treatment in spite of the sa tisfactory level of the measures taken by Brazil, 
Chile and other potential exporters to avoid fruit fly.  Japan had continuously demanded more 
information and had not taken previous scientific studies into account.  Although Japan had offered 
technical assistance, this had not facilitated the pro cess.  Brazil considered that Japan's measures were 
inconsistent with the provisions of the SPS Agreem ent on equivalence, regionalization and technical 
cooperation. 
156. Japan stated that Brazil had requested technical assistance in 1986 but had stopped the 
technical assistance in 1990 becau se it wished to develop its own technique based on hot-water 
treatment.  This design was launched in 1998.  Both  countries agreed on this and the final data was 
submitted in 2001.  Supplementary information was needed, however, before Japan could approve the 
measures and conclude the necessary technical studies. 
157. In October 2003, Brazil stressed that Japan's  restrictions on imports of mangoes were 
unjustified as mangoes were produced in an area 2000 km away from the area where the fruit fly was 
found.  Brazil was waiting for the completion of  the public consultation process in Japan and 
requested Japan to act swiftly to allow the importa tion of mangoes.  Japan reported its authorities had 
recently received data from Brazil on the trapping of  fruit flies and was in the process of reviewing 
the information.  Brazil had subm itted technical information in Oc tober 2001 and the technical studies 
by Japan were progressing well. 
158. In March 2004, Brazil stated that the Japan ese authorities had reacted favourably to 
technical data provided by Brazil the previous year.  The evaluation process had entered a new phase and Brazil hoped to come to a satisfactory solution including the signing of a protocol on packaging, storage and transportation of mangoes to Japan.  Indi a noted that, while India was a fruit fly free area 
its request for market access for ma ngoes into Japan had been under re view for ten years.  India had 
submitted data to Japan and hoped fo r a favourable response.  Japan  stated that technical evaluation G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 38  
 
  of data submitted by Brazil was in the final stages.  With respect to India’s concerns, Japan had not 
received technical data from India but looked forward to receiving such data. 
159. In June 2004, Brazil reported that after the l ast meeting, Brazilian and Japanese phytosanitary 
authorities had held two technical meetings in Japan  to discuss a phytosanitary protocol that would 
allow Brazilian mango exports to Japan.  In the l ast meeting, the Japanese authorities had confirmed 
that negotiations on the protocol ha d been concluded, and certificati on of consignments remained the 
only outstanding issue.  The Japanese authorities had i ndicated that this issue could be resolved in 
parallel with the public consultation phase and Br azil encouraged Japan to initiate the public 
consultation soon.  Japan confirmed that the tec hnical evaluation on the Mediterranean fruit fly had 
been completed and a bilateral meeting had been held to coordinate plant quarantine measures for 
market access and requirements for hot water di pping.  The new protocol was expected to be 
implemented based on the outcomes of these bilateral discussions. 
160. In March 2005,  Brazil informed the Committee that on 29 September 2004, Japan had 
modified its phytosanitary regulations and establis hed specific norms for the import of mangoes from 
Brazil.  In December 2004, Japanese inspectors had gone to Brazil to examine packing houses.  On 
12 January 2005, the first shipment of Brazilian mangoes had been exported to Japan, which marked 
the beginning of a regular flow of exports of mangoe s to Japan.  To date, eight shipments of mangoes 
(variety Tommy Atkins) had been exported without restrictions.  Japan noted that the measure was 
taken through the appropriate p est risk assessment process based on technical data submitted by 
Brazil.   
223. Japan - Import requirements for Indian mangoes 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 37-38) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
161. In June 2005, India stated that although it had many years ago provided the pest and 
surveillance data and the information on treatment standards requested by Japanese authorities, the 
pest risk analysis had not yet been completed.   The extremely slow progress made so far was 
impinging heavily on India's market access for mangoes to Japan.  Another round of bilateral 
technical consultations would be held in mid-July 2005.  
162. Japan explained that it was taking the necessar y measures to prevent a possible invasion of 
the melon fly and two other pests recorded in India but  not present in Japan.  Japan had to verify the 
disease status of Indian mangoes or the application of an effective disinfestation treatment in accordance with relevant international standards.  Technical discussions were currently ongoing in 
order to develop the disinfestation technique, but th e technical data provided were not sufficient to 
allow certification of the effectiveness of the technique.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
  Other concerns 
224. Japan - Restrictions on EC exports of plant and animal products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Brazil 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 24-25), October 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 74-75) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
163. In June 2005, the European  Communities raised concerns  with regard to Japanese 
phytosanitary administrative procedures governing the approval of agricultural imports.  The issue 
had been previously raised on a bilateral basis, but  the procedures continued to be consuming and not 
fully transparent.  To list a new variety of plant pr oducts, EC exporters were facing delays of two to 
three years.  The approval procedure for one plant wa s usually not valid for similar varieties although, 
in terms of plant health risk, there were al most no differences between them.  The European 
Communities requested that any future applicati on for similar plant species with similar plant 
production systems and pest status be considered as an extension of the original application.   
164. Other issues of concerns to th e European Communities included, inter alia , Japan's inspection 
procedures in the exporting country, phytosanitary im port regulations, and a sy stem of zero-tolerance 
for all pests not included in Japan's list of non-qu arantine organisms.  With regard to the animal 
sector, disease-free status recognition and health impor t certification were difficult.  The European 
Communities invited Japan to review its internal administrative SPS procedures to make them more 
efficient and transparent.  Brazil also expressed concerns regarding Japanese approval procedures for 
plant varieties.  
165. Japan explained that it had already taken the necessary steps to fully comply with the SPS 
Agreement and a number of EC exports of fruits and vegetables were currently entering the Japanese 
market.  However, Japan remained open to discuss with the European Communities any specific issue 
justified by facts and figures in order to identify the source of the problem. 
166. In February 2006, the European Communities re ported that some progress had been made in 
consultations between Japan and some EC member St ates.  Japan noted that, risk assessments based 
on scientific evidence had been carried out.  Wh ere the assessments showed that the proposed 
measure met Japan’s appropriate level of protectio n, import bans had been lifted or SPS measures 
eased.  The content and amount of data necessary for the risk assessment differed among species and 
according to regional conditions, so the duration of the assessment varied accordingly.  If the 
European Communities could be more specific about their concerns, Japan would try to address these 
through bilateral consultations. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 40  
 
  REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
Food Safety 
179. Korea – Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada European Communities, New Zeal and, , Philippines 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, par as. 11-14), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 
40-42), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras.  46-48), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 47-50), March 2005 (G/SPS/ R/36/Rev.1, paras. 71-73) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/123, G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 
Solution: Not reported 
 
167. In October 2003, the United States expressed c oncern that Korea's changed import regulation 
was onerous and not supported by science.  Unde r the new import inspection programme imported 
grains, fruits and vegetables would be subjected  to annual MRL tests for the presence of 196 
agricultural chemicals.  Importers would have to bear the US$1,800 cost of such tests, whereas 
domestic producers were exempt from the mandatory testing requirements.  Domestic producers were 
subject to random test for which the Korean Gove rnment bore the costs.  Australia, the European 
Communities and New Zealand also requested Korea to amend the measure which they described was 
contrary to Annex C of the SPS Agreement. 
168. Korea responded that it had amended the regul ations to meet its appropriate level of 
protection and noted that there were no comments on the issue when the SPS notification was 
circulated at the beginning of the year.  Technical de velopments had reduced the cost of testing and as 
such Korea planned to considerably reduce the t esting fees.  The United States replied that it had 
submitted comments on Korea's notification in Marc h and had two meetings in September with 
Korean officials regarding this issue. 
169. In March 2004, the United States stated that th ey were informed during bilateral meetings 
held with Korea that test fees would be reduced.  However, the Korean authorities had not finalized 
this decision nor addressed the issue satisfactorily.  Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the European 
Communities stated that Korea's testing regime  would impose substantial costs on imports and 
discriminated between imported products and simila r products produced in Korea.  Korea replied that 
the relevant administrative procedures to redu ce the testing fees were underway and would be 
completed in two to three weeks, but  not later than the end of April. 
170. In June 2004, the United States commented that  under Korea's import inspection programme, 
importers would bear the cost of the testing fees, now estimated at US$1-2,000 each.  While the United States recognized Korea's attempts to mo dify their requirements through the issuance of 
notifications G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 in 2004, the proposed fee for testing would still be twice as large as that proposed by Korea's Food and Drug Administration.  Although the number of chemicals 
subject to mandatory testing had been reduced fro m 196 to 47, domestic producers were still exempt 
from the mandatory testing requirement.  Thus, Ko rea's import inspection pr ogram was inconsistent 
with national treatment provisions of the WTO.  D espite bilateral discussions over the past year, the 
United States perceived insufficient progress on this issue and hoped for more significant progress in the future. Australia, Canada and the European  Communities expressed similar concerns. Korea 
emphasized that both the testing fees and the numbe r of agricultural chemicals for which mandatory  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
  testing was required had been subs tantially reduced.  In order to provide testing exemptions based 
upon compliance history, the relevant regulations would need to be revised.   
171. In October 2004, the United States stated many of  its concerns still re mained.  For example, 
Korea had proposed in G/SPS/N/KOR/154 that imported  foods with clean records would be exempted 
from the mandatory laboratory inspections.  However, the proposed exemptions had not been put into 
effect in the final revised regulations.  Furthe rmore, although Korea had reduced the number of 
chemicals subject to mandatory laboratory inspecti on from 196 to 47, testing fees of approximately 
US$500 per test were still applied.  Domestic producers were still onl y subject to random testing and 
the costs were borne by the Korean government.  The US concerns were directly related to 
distinctions in fees between imported goods and lik e-products produced in Korea in accordance with 
Annex C of the SPS Agreement.  The European Communities shared the concerns of the United 
States as the European Communities had also been a ffected by Korea's testing requirements.  Korea’s 
measures as notified in G/SPS/N/KOR/123 were sti ll being implemented and the amendments as 
notified in G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 did not have a proposed implementation date.  Korea's current 
testing requirements were disproportionate to th e risks and were discriminatory against imported 
products.  Korea was requested to remove these restri ctive measures and to ali gn them to international 
standards. 
172. Korea stated that it would take some time to  revise the relevant legislation needed to 
implement the measures notified in G/SPS/N/KO R/154 and 155.  The testing fee had been 
substantially reduced and was now one-third the cost of the previous fee.  However, the fee was still 
two times higher than what was proposed in Oc tober 2003 because the domestic industry was 
concerned that the proposed testing fee was not sufficient to compensate for testing requirements 
needed to ensure the safety of foods.  Testing fees would be adjusted in th e future when the need 
arose.  Korea applied strict guidelines to domestic products with respect to the use of agro-chemicals 
and did not discriminate between imported and domesti cally produced products.   Korea took note of 
the concerns of the United States, particularly with reference to Annex C of the SPS Agreement. 
173. In March 2005, the United States noted that although Korea had proposed exemption from 
mandatory laboratory inspection for imported food w ith a clean record, the proposed exemption had 
not been included in the final revised regulation.   Furthermore, the fee for mandatory laboratory 
inspection (approximately US$500) remained as a barri er to new products and was still twice as large 
as that initially proposed by the Korean Food and Drug Administration in October 2003.  Domestic 
producers were exempted from the mandatory testing requirements but subjected to random tests.  
However, the Korean Government bore all the co sts for these tests.  The United States had held 
bilateral consultations with Korea for nearly two years, and further consultations were scheduled.  The 
European Communities and the Philippi nes shared the concerns of the United States.  The Philippines 
indicated that the requirements would be particular ly burdensome for developing countries, and asked 
Korea to take developing countries exporters into special consideration. 
174. Korea noted that the revised regulation to implem ent this measure would come into effect this 
year.  The proposed testing fee had been review ed following a public hearing process.  Some 
interested groups had expressed the view that the proposed testing fee would not be enough to 
compensate the cost of the testing.  Korea had carefully reviewed the various opinions and had 
decided on the level of the testing fee.  That level was two times higher than the proposed one, yet 
about one fourth the level initially proposed.  If n ecessary, the testing fee would be adjusted in the 
future. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 42  
 
  Plant Health 
202. Korea – Septoria  controls on horticultural products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as. 40-41), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
para 84) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Resolved 
 
175. The United States stated that since April 2004,  Korea had banned imports of citrus from 
California due to concerns of the fungi septoria citri .  The United States was working closely with 
Korean plant health officials to address this con cern although no cases of the fungi had been detected 
in any US shipment of citrus.  The United States had proposed sev eral measures to address Korean's 
plant health protection concerns and technical di scussions would be held on 4 November 2004.  The 
United States hoped that discussions on the protocol would be finalized and trade resumed quickly as 
the harvesting season would shortly begin. 
176. Korea stated that septoria citri  was one of the most serious quarantine pests in Korea.  The 
US proposed protocol did not fully address Ko rea's concerns.  A ban was imposed on fruits 
originating from two specific areas in the Unite d States where the fungi was repeatedly detected. 
177. In March 2005, the United States and Korea re ported that this issue had been resolved 
following technical meetings. 
MEXICO 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other Animal Health Concerns 225.  Mexico - Restrictions on US poultry 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 26-29) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
178. In June 2005, the United States stated that Mexico was banning imports of poultry and 
poultry products from an entire US state in whic h cases of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) had 
been reported in some areas.  Mexico also require d avian influenza (AI) testing for layer and broiler 
flocks regardless of whether or not AI had been re ported.  Only two subtyp es of AI (H5 and H7) had 
been found to mutate into the highly pathogenic fo rms of the disease. Low pathogenic strains of AI 
did not cause systemic disease and had not been shown to be of consequence for animal health or food 
safety.  The OIE did not recommend any trade restric tions on poultry and poultry products when cases  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
  of low pathogenic strains of AI of non-H5 and H7 subtypes were reported and only limited measures 
for low pathogenic strains of the H5 and H7 subtype s.  The relevant scientific evidence showed that 
the LPAI virus did not appear in th e muscle tissue of an infected chic ken and that neither fresh meat 
nor eggs imported from regions affected by low pathogenic AI posed a risk of transmitting the 
disease.  Given the scientific evidence underpinning  the recently-adopted changes in the relevant 
international standard, the United States encouraged  Mexico to modify its import restrictions and 
testing requirements.  
179. Canada indicated that in March 2004, Mexico  had banned the importation of poultry and its 
products from all of Canada in response to the findi ngs of high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in 
British Colombia.  Canada had kept all trading part ners fully informed of the control measures it had 
imposed to limit the outbreak to British Colombia.  Unlike many of its trading partners, Mexico had 
not regionalized its measures to apply to British Co lombia only.  Canada had now been free of HPAI 
for over one year and had provided all the informati on requested by Mexico to verify this status in 
accordance with OIE guidelines.  Consistent with the OIE, the majority of Canada's trading partners 
had removed their measures against Canadian poultry.   Canada called upon Mexico to do the same.  
180. Mexico explained that since May 1994, when low pathogenicity avian influenza (LPAI) had 
been detected in Mexico, specific SPS measures ha d been applied to prevent exotic subtypes and 
control and eradicate the only su btype identified, H5N2.  Mexican Official Standard NOM-44-ZOO-
1995, which covered any subtype of avian influen za (AI), both low and high pathogenic strains, had 
been published in 1995.  In the United States, vari ous subtypes of low and high pathogenic strains had 
been officially identified, none of which, with the exception of one, existed in the Mexican poultry 
sector.  The sanitary requirements established by the Mexican legislation in the domestic poultry 
sector were equivalent to those applied for the export of poultry and poultry products originating in 
the states affected by AI in the United States.  However, the sanitary measures aimed at ensuring 
epidemiological surveillance and monitoring of the transport of poultry and poultry products applied 
in the affected states of the United States were not  equivalent to those implemented in the Mexican 
poultry sector.  As the risk of transmission of AI w as particularly high in live poultry and less in fresh 
poultry products and by-products, importation of so me poultry products from the quarantined states 
was allowed.  Mexico was continuing to analyze the technical information provided by the United 
States with a view to the opening up of exports  of poultry and poultry products. This additional 
information had been provided by the USDA during the first quarter of 2005.  
181. Mexico recalled that the OIE in May 2005 a dopted regulations (Chapter 2.17.12: AI, 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code) that stipulated that  all H7 and H5 subtypes of AI viruses, in both its 
high and low pathogenic forms, were notifiable as well as any AI virus with an intravenous 
pathogenicity index (IVPI) greater than 1.2.  These re gulations also stipulated that a country, zone or 
compartment could be recognized as free from the notifiable high and low pathogenic forms of AI virus.  In accordance with Article 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of the SPS Agreement, Mexico had established the 
health requirements for exporting poultry and poultry by-products from and originating in areas free 
of notifiable AI viruses or free only of highly pathog enic notifiable AI viruses.  Mexico currently 
allowed imports of poultry, poultry products and by-products from the United States, except for birds 
and some products from the states affected by a s ubtype of AI.  Regarding Canada, Mexico explained 
that  following an outbreak of highly pathogenic AI of the H7N3 subtype in British Colombia, the 
province had been quarantined and technical info rmation requested concerning the outbreak. That 
same month, Mexico had received information identif ying the AI virus in ducks and in geese as low 
pathogenic.  In June 2005, it had received information identifying the low pathogenicity virus of the 
subtype H3, also in British Colombia, and would ca rry out an assessment of the health situation in 
respect of AI in British Colombia.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 44  
 
  PANAMA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns Related to FMD 
187. Panama – FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil, Costa Rica 
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras.  16-17), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 
56-57), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev. 1, paras. 50-51), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras 173-174), October 2005/February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 83-87) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution:  Not reported 
 
182. In March 2004, Argentina raised concerns on two measures adopted by Panama to prohibit 
the imports of certain products due to FMD.  On 19 March 2001, Panama issued a resolution to 
restrict the imports of animals and by-products fro m Europe and South America with the exception of 
Chile.  On 1 August 2001, Pana ma amended its penal code th rough Law 44.  Neither measure 
complied with OIE recommendations.  However, duri ng bilateral consultations  held on 16 March 
2004, Panama had proposed amending Law 44 to eliminate these restrictions.  Panama confirmed the 
positive outcome of the bilateral meeting and indi cated discussions with Argentina would continue. 
183. In October 2004, Argentina informed the Committee that Argentina had received positive 
news on the issue of Panama’s restrictions on da iry products and was hopeful of a resolution by the 
next Committee meeting.  Panama stated that bilatera l consultations were held with Argentina prior to 
the Committee meeting and was optim istic of resolving the issue. 
184. In March 2005,  Argentina recalled that in October 2004, a bilateral agreement had been 
negotiated with Panama whereby officials from Pana ma would carry out a visit to establish the safety 
of Argentina's milk products.  The visit had not yet taken place and Argentina dairy products 
continued to be prevented from entering Panama.   
185. Panama noted that it permitted imports of agri cultural products if the country of origin 
showed objectively that its sanitary measures guarant eed the same level of protection as the sanitary 
measures established in the regulations  of Panama.  The legislation in Panama required that imports of 
animal products from countries affected by exotic illn esses be preceded by a ri sk analysis undertaken 
by the Panamanian authorities, based on the methodologies recommended by the international 
organizations of which Panama was a member.  The inspection of establishments in the exporting 
country was part of the process to determine the sa nitary situation of the country.  Argentina was 
invited to develop a plan of action so that Pa nama could carry out the visits in Argentina. 
186. In June 2005, Argentina reported that the visit of the Panamanian authorities had not yet taken 
place, although Argentina had responded to a questi onnaire.  Furthermore, Panama subsequently 
added a registration requirement for firms interest ed in exporting dairy products to Panama for tax 
purposes.  Argentina asked Panama to adjust its sanit ary requirements to those in the OIE Code and to 
modify its administrative requirements.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 45 
 
 
  187. Panama replied that Argentina's request was clo se to completion.  Registration of interested 
firms was indeed required, and as soon as these steps were completed, Panamanian officials would be 
able to visit Argentine plants to finalize the procedure.   
188. In February 2006, Argentina stated that the vi sits to dairy plants still had not occurred.  
Companies wishing to export to Panama were require d to be registered in Panama and the veterinary 
evaluation services of an exporting country had to be authenticated by the Panamanian competent 
authorities, supposedly to avoid "ghost companies" .  Argentina reiterated its request that Panama 
bring its regulations into line w ith the OIE Code, remove the bureaucratic barriers to market access 
and be transparent about its administration procedures. 
189. Brazil noted that it had recently had problems relating to the administrative procedures 
established by Panama for certain Brazilian products .  Costa Rica also expressed hope that products 
from Costa Rican dairy plants still undergoing inspection would soon have access to Panama. 
190. Panama maintained that its sanitary risk asse ssment methodology was in full compliance with 
both the SPS Agreement and the OIE standards.  Compliance with Panama's requirements for the 
export of dairy products was not limited to the inspection of certain dairy processing plants but 
required the exporting country to objectively de monstrate this compliance.  Once Panama had 
received the information demonstrating Argentina's compliance with Panama's requirements, a risk 
analysis would be carried out in order to re-establish the trade in dairy products.   
Other Animal Health Concerns 
214. Panama - Inspection regime for f ood processing establishments 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 25-27),  
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/PAN/1, G/SPS/N/PAN/28 , G/SPS/N/PAN/37, 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
191. The United States indicated that Panama had broadened its establishment inspection 
requirements to most food processing establishments  in January 2005, without notifying the WTO and 
providing interested Members an opportunity to comme nt.  This was in contradiction with Article 7 
and Annex B of the SPS Agreement.  In addition, Panama had not provided any risk assessment that 
supported these new measures, despite formal requests by  the United States.  Canada recalled that it 
also had experienced problems in the past w ith the establishment-by-establishment accreditation 
approach used by Panama, and urged Panama to c onsider the quicker and less expensive alternative 
approach of systems approval. 
192. Panama pointed out that this regime had been notified to the SPS Committee and Members 
provided an opportunity to comment on it (G/SPS/N/PAN/1, G/SPS/N/PAN/28 and G/SPS/N/PAN/37).  This was the first time, since th e implementation of Panama's inspection regime 
for the inspection of food establishments in 1995, that  an issue in relation with this system had been 
raised at the WTO.  Panama's legislation required that imports of animals and animal products from 
countries affected by exotic illnesses be subject to a risk analysis carried out by Panamanian health 
authorities because Panama, as a hub for world trade tran sit, was exposed to a greater risk of illness 
from exotic animals and plants. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 46  
 
  226. Panama - Inspection regime for agricultural products  
Raised by: Costa Rica 
Supported by: Argentina, Canada, Colomb ia, European Communities, United States 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 39-41) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/PAN/43, G/SPS/GEN/582 
Solution: Not reported 
 
193. In June 2005, Costa Rica noted that, as de veloped in document G/SPS/GEN/582, Panama's 
new inspection system, notified in April 2005 as G/SPS/N/PAN/43, posed problems to several Costa Rican firms trying to export tomato  paste, milk and animal products to Panama.  Panama had changed 
its rules regarding the inspection of plants without prior notification to the WTO and provision of an 
adaptation period.  Although Costa Rican enterpri ses already had certifications from the Panama's 
Ministry of Health for exports of sweetened milk  and animal products to Panama, now according to 
the new rules they also had to undergo inspection by  the Ministry of Agriculture.  Costa Rica had 
unsuccessfully requested Panama to avoid the second in spection.  Costa Rica had also requested that 
Panama provide the risk assessment and scientific justification supporting this new requirement. 
194. Argentina, Canada, Colombia, the European  Communities and the United States reported 
experiencing similar difficulties accessing the Panama nian market.  Argentina had sanitary difficulties 
in relation to FMD and bureaucratic difficulties whic h did not seem to be designed to protect animal 
health in Panama (see Panama- FMD restrictions ).  The European Communities had suddenly been 
faced with a new Panamanian health legislation re ferring, firstly, to a system which seemed to link 
obtaining an import licence for Panama to a paym ent and, secondly, to an inspection system which 
would be paid for by the exporting country.  The United States recalled an is sue raised at the March 
meeting of the Committee concerning the expansion of Panama's inspection programme to most food 
processing establishments and the non notification of  this significant change in Panama's import 
regime.  Canada had been experiencing problems with Panama's requirement for plant-by-plant 
approvals for meat exports and the recent changes to Panama's inspection regime.  
195. Panama reminded the Committee that it was the fi rst time that this issue of plant inspection 
was raised by Costa Rica before the SPS Committee and explained that  he would convey Costa Rica's 
comments to the competent author ities.  Panama's inspection re gime followed the fundamental 
principles of the SPS Agreement and of OIE and IPPC standards.  Risk assessment methods 
comprised two parts:  the protection of Panama's he alth status and the functioning of the Ministry of 
Agriculture.  The excellent quality of Panama's ex ports of cattle and dair y products was due to a 
stringent application of the SPS measures domestical ly and to imports.  Because of its geographical 
situation as a hub for world trade, Panama was expo sed to a greater risk of introduction of pest and 
animal diseases and therefore had to undertake a ri sk assessment prior to authorizing imports from 
countries affected by exotic diseases.  The risk assessment undertaken by the Panamanian authorities 
would shortly be given to the Costa Rican delegation.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 47 
 
 
  SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
(CHINESE TAIPEI) 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns Related to TSEs 
227. Chinese Taipei - BSE-related import restrictions on non-ruminant products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 30-32) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
196. In June 2005, the United States raised concer ns regarding the BSE-related import prohibition 
imposed by Chinese Taipei on non-ruminant rende red meals except fishmeal, and all spray-dried 
animal products except dairy products  and certain porcine products made  in specified plants.  For over 
five years, the United States had been providing signi ficant scientific information to the animal health 
authorities of Chinese Taipei to allow the resumption of this trade.  Chinese Taipei had not provided 
any scientific justification exceeding the relevant in ternational standards.  Bilateral discussions just 
prior to the meeting gave hope of find ing a mutually satisfactory solution.  
197. The European Communities requested that Chin ese Taipei and other countries fully adopt the 
new recommendations of the OIE Code.  The cl earer and simpler provisions of the OIE Code 
specifically allowed trade of beef products derive d from deboned skeletal muscle meat from animals 
under 30 months of age. 
198. Chinese Taipei pointed out that Chinese Taipei's  concerns focused primarily on the possibility 
of cross-contamination with material of ruminant  origin.  The implementation of the US system 
needed careful evaluation and verification by on-site  inspections.  Based on risk analysis results, the 
importation of fish products, hydr olyzed proteins derived from pro cessing meals, spray-dried proteins 
and plasma proteins from the United States were not currently prohibited.  Chinese Taipei's SPS 
measures were designed to ensure the safe trade of animal and animal products in accordance with the 
concept of an appropriate level of protection and did not exceed the OIE guidelines.  Chinese Taipei was seeking a solution to the issue with the Un ited States.  Regarding the EC concern on beef, 
Chinese Taipei would respond to the European Communities in writing. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 48  
 
  THAILAND 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THAILAND   
Food Safety 
215. Thailand - Regulation 11 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: New Zealand, Japan 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 42-44), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 45-47) , October 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 59-60) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/THA/116 and addenda 1-5 
Solution: Not reported 
 
199. In March 2005, the United States observed th at Thailand had notified Public Health 
Regulation N° 11 to be implemented in December 2004 (G/SPS/N/THA/116).  In response to extensive comments, Thailand had de layed implementation to March 2005 
(G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add.1), but had not addressed the subs tantive issues raised by the United States.  
Many US fresh food products had been categorized in that Regulation as high risk with no scientific 
basis.  As a result, burdensome and costly tes ting and certification of compliance with pathogen 
requirements, and pesticides and heavy metals resi due levels were now requi red for US exports to 
enter the market.  The United States urged Thaila nd to suspend implementation of the Regulation 
until a science-based risk assessment for each  product affected had been conducted. 
200. New Zealand also expressed concerns about the testing and certification requirements of 
Regulation 11 and requested Thailand to further delay the entry into force of the regulation in order to 
substantially amend it . 
201. Thailand indicated that the Regulation was part of a national strategic plan on food aimed at 
strengthening control measures for the safety and qu ality of Thai food from farm to table or export 
markets.  The Regulation was not intended to discriminate against imports. 
202. In June 2005, the United States recalled that Thailand had notified further revisions to 
Rule 11 on 23 May 2005, (G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add.3 ) leaving only 38 days for WTO Members to 
provide comments.  This was not sufficient for export ers to become familiar with the changes, nor for 
Members to submit comments, or for Thailand to cons ider comments that might have been provided.  
The United States still had substantial concerns abou t the scientific basis for Thailand's categorization 
of many US products as "high risk".  It was also still not clear whether Thailand would require 
certification and testing on domestic  products.  On 24 June 2005, the United States had been informed 
that the implementation of Rule 11 would be dela yed until 31 December 2005.  The United States 
appreciated these developments and encouraged Th ailand to develop measures consistent with the 
SPS Agreement to manage any documented risks. 
203. Japan observed that a national strategic plan on food, such as Rule 11, aimed at strengthening 
the control measures for the safety and quality of domestic and imported food, should be based on a 
science-based risk assessment and the working princi ples for risk analysis applied by the Codex 
Alimentarius.  In order to a void unjustified trade barriers, risk management should ensure 
transparency and consistency in the decisi on-making process in all cases.  Japan requested 
information about the relationship between the pr oposed regulation and the related international 
standards.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 49 
 
 
  204. Thailand replied that the food standards that  would be applied throughout the country 
complied with the relevant international standards.   Requiring a health certificate was the best option 
to alleviate the burden on importers at the borde r and was in compliance with Codex standards.  
Thailand had addressed most of the comments re ceived from Members.  Some food standards 
inconsistent with the Codex had been withdrawn,  pending further science-based evaluation.  Thailand 
notified additional modifications on 12 July 2005 (G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add.4) and cancelled its 
notification on 12 January 2006 (G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add. 5) in order ot undertake a complete review 
of Rule 11. 
205. In February 2006, the United States expressed appreciation for Thailand's several extensions 
and eventual cancellation of implementation of D ecree 11.  However, the underlying decree was still 
in place and its overall requirement that food must be proven to be safe through unspecified testing 
and certification processes remained of concern.  Th ailand was urged to reconsider the framework of 
the decree and to notify any changes sufficiently in advance for WTO Members to comment before 
final decisions were made.  
206. Thailand clarified that, on the basis of comments by some Members, the requirements for a 
food health certificate had been withdrawn and th e current review focussed on high risk food 
products.  This review would be based on scientific  risk assessment.  Thailand was convinced that 
certifying healthy food on the basis of internatio nal standards was a way of facilitating trade.  
Thailand was also willing to recognize the equivalence of other measures. on the basis of international 
guidelines. 
Animal Health 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
234. Thailand - Suspension of importation of live poultry and poultry carcasses 
(G/SPS/N/THA/126) 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005/Februar y 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 88-89) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
207. In February 2006, Mexico requested Thailand to conclude the emergency measures which had 
led to the temporary suspension of imports of  live poultry and poultry carcasses from the Mexican 
state of Durango.  The strain of avian influenza (A I) detected in the Mexican poultry products (H5N2) 
was low pathogenic.  In accordance with the OIE,  prior to implementing such measures, Thailand 
should have demonstrated that it was free of the low pathogenic strain at issue and that it had put in 
place a monitoring programmes able to detect this s ubtype despite the absence of clinical symptoms.  
Mexico's programme for AI control and eradication,  which had been in force for ten years, ensured 
the eradication of all subtypes of AI.  The st ate of Durango had complied with all the OIE 
requirements to regain a disease-free status in th e case of a low pathogenic AI infection and was AI-
free for all subtypes.  Thailand should therefore remove its temporary restrictions. 
208. Thailand indicated that it had adopted a precauti onary approach since the AI outbreaks over 
the last two years.  Active surveillance had been put in place to control an d eradicate the disease.  
Areas at risk had been scanned and movements of  poultry and poultry products within the country G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 50  
 
  were under control.  Thailand had temporarily  banned some Mexican poultry exports from the 
infected state only. 
UNITED STATES 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES  
Plant Health 
102. United States - Import restrictions on po tted plants from the European Communities 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, par as. 30-31), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 58-60), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/ 37/Rev.1, paras. 70-71), October 
2005/February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 72-73) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/1059  
Solution: Not reported 
 
209. In July 2001, the European Communities indicated that exports of plants in growing medium 
had been impeded for over 20 years because the Un ited States conducted a pest risk assessment for 
each type of plant before allowing imports, and each assessment took several years to complete.  In 
addition, the requirements for accepted species were very rigid and not proportional to the potential risk.  The European Communities requested the Unit ed States to adjust its import requirements and 
administrative procedures to allow for market access.   The United States replied that its requirements 
reflected the need to avoid introduction of pest s and diseases that could seriously undermine native 
ecosystems as well as cultivated plants.  The root s of potted plants, even in an approved medium, 
could not be examined for signs of disease, and other mitigation measures were necessary.  The 
United States was preparing a technical proposal for review by the Commission and EC member States, and had proposed the formation of a joint technical working group to address the issue.  USDA 
was willing to review any systems certification pr oposal submitted by the Commission or its member 
States, with the understanding that any modifications  to existing US regulations would have to be 
scientifically justified and be subject to the US rulemaking process. 
210. In March 2005, the European Communities reitera ted concerns that for more than 20 years 
this sector has attempted to obtain better conditions for access to the US market.  The most recent visit 
in May 2003 had resulted in a US assessment that EC member States had very high SPS standards and 
were expected to meet US requirements.  However,  the difficulties were continuing.  For instance, a 
Danish request for approval to export Schlumbe rgera to the United States had been submitted ten 
years ago and the corresponding US pest risk assessm ent had become available only in June 2004.  
The European Communities urged the United States to review its internal administrative procedures in 
the phytosanitary field to ensure these did not create unjustified trade restriction. 
211. China shared the concerns of the European Communities.  In 1980, China had started to 
export potted plants in growing media to the United States, and experienced problems similar to those 
of the European Communities.  Although in 1996 China had signed a work plan for exporting plants 
in growing media to the United States, to date, China could not export to the United States. 
212. The United States recognized the importance of this issue to the European Communities and 
had taken a number of steps to ensure that the co ncerns were handled as expeditiously as possible.  
The United States was examining how and whether its  import regulations for nursery stock, including  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 51 
 
 
  plants in growing media, might be changed.  An  advanced notice of proposed rulemaking had been 
published in December 2004, and all Members c ould provide comments on that proposal.  The 
proposal sought to streamline the specific proces s questioned by both the European Communities and 
China.  The United States hoped to publish a pr oposed rule for Schlumbergera from the European 
Communities in the near future. 
213. In June 2005, the European Communities reca lled that on 27 April 2005, the US authorities 
had notified as G/SPS/N/USA/1059 a draft rule proposing the inclusion of two species from the Netherlands and Denmark in the c onditional positive list of plants established in approved growing 
media that might be imported into the United St ates.  The European Communities welcomed the 
progress made on this issue and requested that new applications for similar species from similar 
production systems or country pest status be treated as an extension of this proposed rule.  This 
request was legitimate, proportionate to the risk and trade facilitating by nature.  The European 
Communities invited the United States to pu blish the final rule as soon as possible. 
214. The United States indicated that the comment peri od for its draft rule had closed on 27 June 
2005.  The United States requested a written copy of th e EC statement to further consider its request.  
However, considering any additions or revisions to a proposed rule  that had been both notified and 
published might slow down final action. 
215. In February 2006, the European Communities reca lled that this issue had been pursued in 
bilateral discussions for the past 25 years.  Specifi cally at issue was the request from Denmark and the 
Netherlands for approval of particular plant species ( Schlumbergera spp  and Rhipsalidosis spp  
respectively).  In April 2005, the United States has notified a draft rule on the "Importation of 
Christmas Cactus and Easter Cactus in Growing Media from the Netherlands and Denmark" 
(G/SPS/N/USA/1059) with a comment period ending in  June 2005.  The United States was invited to 
publish the final rule as soon as possible and to cons ider new applications for species with similar 
production systems or country pest status as an extension of the existing proposed rule. 
216. The United States noted that since June 2005, the United States had conducted a thorough 
review of all comments received and had begun draf ting a final regulation.  No revisions to the 
proposed rule were currently being considered in or der to avoid any delays in the publication of the 
final rule, however it was not possible to give a specific time frame for such a publication.  In 
addition, the United States was also considering chan ges to its entire regulatory framework for import 
measures affecting plants in growing media, as notified in G/SPS/N/USA/1043 in March 2005.  Comments on this notification were currently being reviewed.  The United States would ensure that 
any modification to the existing regulations would meet both the plant health protection requirements 
and the requirements of the SPS Agreement. 
216. United States - Restrictions on Ya pears imports 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 37-39) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
217. In March 2005, China reported that, at the end of 2003, the US Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) had suspended imports of  Ya pears from China on the grounds that new 
species of the fungus Alternaria sp . had been found.  The Chin ese Government had undertaken 
cooperative studies with the United States and finall y obtained a result satisfactory to both Chinese G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 52  
 
  and US specialists.  However, US authorities ha d not yet made any decision based on the above 
results and imports of pears from China were still suspended. 
218. The European Communities noted that it was also experiencing lengthy decision-making 
procedures when trying to export some plant products  to the United States, and invited the United 
States to review its internal administrative procedures. 
219. The United States clarified that imports of Ya pears from China were suspended in December 
2003 due to repeated detections of the exotic fungus Alternaria sp .and that imports of these pears had 
already been suspended in previous years for a similar problem. In May 2004, China had been 
provided with a document describing the status of this organism as a pest of quarantine significance 
and the United States had been working closely with China to develop conditions that would allow the 
reopening of the market.  After several bilate ral discussions, agreement had been reached in 
November 2004 on a work plan stipulating that Chin ese scientists would cooperate with US scientists 
to develop possible measures to mitigate the fungus.  A protocol had been agreed in December 2004 
to enable a test shipment of Ya pears to be imported for research purposes into the United States to 
evaluate the various mitigation measures..  Unfortunat ely, the collaborative rese arch showed that even 
with all the mitigation measures in place, the in festation rate still significantly exceeded the one 
specified in the work plan of November 2004.  Alternaria sp . was a newly identified species not 
known to exist in the United States, and a better understanding of this or ganism was necessary to 
develop appropriate mitigation measures.  The Un ited States would continue work with China to 
identify measures to reduce the level of infestation to  an acceptable level so that the market might be 
reopened. 
228. United States - Import procedures for fruits and vegetables 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 21-23) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
220. In June 2005, the European Communities observe d that EC exports of fruits and vegetables 
were experiencing lengthy inspection procedures that because of the highly perishable nature of the 
products, resulted in commercial losses.  The US  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) also required that only US -produced pesticides be used duri ng cultivation, some of which 
were not permitted within the European Commun ities.  The European Co mmunities requested the 
United States to accept the use of equivalent pesticid es.  Certain insects used to protect crops in the 
European Communities were not allowed entry into th e United States.  Other concerns included, inter 
alia, cold treatment import requirements and pre-clearance inspection procedures.  
221. Argentina described the case of markets not attrac tive enough for the private sector to register 
a pesticide, so that no specific limit was fixed for the level of residues of this pesticide.  On sanitary 
grounds, the default limit was zero or close to zer o, which equalled prohib iting the products.  The 
maximum limits established by Codex should be used by default in such cases. 
222. The United States replied that its import pro cedures were transparent and WTO-consistent.  
Pesticide residue levels on fruits coming into the United States had to be approved by the US 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Pesticides did not have to be produced in the United States, 
but to be registered on the EPA list of authorized  pesticides.  The United States imported very  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 53 
 
 
  substantial volumes of fresh fruits  and vegetables from about 150 c ountries and the value of imports 
had increased by 97 per cent over the past ten years. 
VENEZUELA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY VENEZUELA  
Other Concerns 
123. Venezuela – Restrictions on imports of potatoes, onions, fertilised eggs, day-old chicks 
and meat products 
Raised by: Colombia, Canada 
Supported by: Chile, United States 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  27-29), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 30-
32), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1,  paras. 55-57, June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 59-61) , October 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 76-78) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
223. In March 2002, Colombia observed that Venezuela was not granting sanitary certificates for 
potatoes, fresh mushrooms, fresh  tomatoes, fertile eggs, day-ol d chicks and meat products and 
requested that Venezuela notify th e measure which served as the basi s for the discretionary granting 
or non-issuance of health certificates for Colombian exports, or to lift this measure.  Chile, the United 
States and Canada supported the concerns expressed by Colombia.   
224. Venezuela provided details of import levels fo r potatoes, mushrooms and fresh tomatoes in 
2001, which showed that import licenses were being granted.  Venezuela had temporarily suspended 
SPS licensing for fertile eggs and day-old chicks as a result of an outbreak of avian flu in Colombia, a 
disease alien to Venezuela, from January 2002.  On 8 February 2002, the prohibition on fertile eggs 
was removed.  Notification of the lifting of restri ctions against day-old ch icks was made on 7 March 
2002.  For meat products, Venezuela noted that her country regularly imported beef on the hoof, 
slaughtered and processed beef and swine products.  In reply to the comments of other Members, she 
stated that it was important not to confuse problem s of administrative capacity and management with 
discretionary licensing.  
225. In June 2004, Canada recalled that it had rai sed concerns over Venezuela's issuance of SPS-
related permits in previous SPS Committee and Agriculture Committee meetings.  Venezuela's 
policies had restricted Canadian exports of meat, seed potatoes, table potatoes and onions.  Venezuela 
had not provided a clear explanation of this policy,  however it appeared that the permits in question 
were SPS-related.  Importers would apply to Ve nezuelan authorities for permits and provide SPS 
information to support their application, but appli cations had been denied without an SPS-related 
justification.  Canada requested  that Venezuela grant permits on an automatic basis as long as the 
conditions of the SPS Agreement had been met.  Ve nezuela and Canada had agreed to continue to 
pursue this issue bilaterally.  Chile and the United States requested that Venezuela review its import 
procedures in order to comply with obligations under the SPS Agreement.  The United States noted 
that for products not subject to tariff rate quotas (TRQs), Venezuela seemed to be using SPS permits 
in a manner equivalent to import licences. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 54  
 
  226. Venezuela stated that Canadian import requests were normally given a positive reply.  The 
comments from Canada, Chile and the United Stat es would be considered carefully.  Venezuela 
would contact the Canadian authorities to clarify the situation concerning import requests of meat. 
227. In March 2005, Canada reitera ted its long-standing concerns about discretionary import 
licensing being used by the sanitary and phytosanitary  authorities of Venezuela to restrict imports of 
potatoes, onions and pork from Canada.  There had recently been two substantive meetings with 
senior delegations from Caracas and Canada hoped this issue would soon be resolved. 
228. The United States shared Canada's concerns regarding Venezuela's restrictive import 
licensing and SPS permit regimes.  The United St ates was specifically concerned about:  (1) 
Venezuela's use of SPS permits to enforce qu otas based on economic rather than scientific 
justifications;  (2) the lack of transparency and th e apparent inconsistency of  the import permit/license 
approval process which resulted in significant dela ys in the issuance of some permits and licences 
compared to others and which arbitrarily reduced  the quantity approved for import compared to the 
requested amount;  and (3) Venezuela's insistence  on requiring importers and users of imported 
products to purchase domestically produced commoditi es in order to gain approval or permission to 
import. 
229. Venezuela confirmed the fruitful consultations with Canada and hoped to report the resolution 
of this problem at the next Committee meeting. 
230. In June 2005, Canada indicated that, wit hout any SPS justification and despite having 
negotiated a sanitary agreement a few years ago, Ve nezuelan pork importers had never been able to 
obtain import permits from the Venezuelan sanitary authorities for Canadian pork.  Permits for seed 
or table potatoes had not been issued for long periods of time.  Bilateral efforts to resolve the problem 
were continuing. 
231. The United States noted that if Venezuela' s restrictive import regime was based on SPS 
permits as opposed to import licences, as Venezuel a had implied in the Import Licensing Committee, 
Venezuela should explain the risk being addressed th rough this permit and s upply the supporting risk 
assessment.  
232. Venezuela took note of Canada's concerns a nd noted that bilateral negotiations were 
continuing. 
233. In February 2006, Canada indicated that this issue was of  long duration and frustration.  
Under the WTO rules, issuance of import perm its was automatic unless there were underlying SPS 
concerns.  Canadian table potatoes, onions and pork were being refused without any rationale.  Unless 
Venezuela had identified legitimate SPS concerns , it should expeditiously issue import licenses for 
agricultural products from Cana da on an automatic basis. 
234. The United States reported its concern about the lack of progress on this issue as US exports 
of yellow corn, oilseeds and dairy products had been affected by the restrictions. 
235. Venezuela noted that a number of the requ ests Canada had made in March had been 
addressed, and Venezuela had issued permits to im port Canadian pork and potatoes.  Venezuelan 
technicians were preparing a visit to Canada to inspect potatoes to be exported to Venezuela.  
Venezuela was willing to carry out additional  bila teral meetings to find a mutually satisfactory 
solution to Canada’s concerns.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 55 
 
 
  OTHER CONCERNS 
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE concerns  
193. Certain Members – General import restrictions due to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Canada, United States 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras.  37-38), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para.85-
86), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 75-76) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Partially resolved. 
 
236. 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. 
237. 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 potentia l pathway for introduction of the disease.   
238. 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. 
239. 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 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, many b ovine derivate 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.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 56  
 
  Other Animal Health Concerns  
190. Certain Members - Regionalization and recognition of animal disease free status 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, para. 52) , June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 35-36), 
October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 87), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 52-54) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Several WTO members removed re strictions on some EC member States 
 
240. In March 2004, the European Communities indicated that they recognized regionalization and 
based their policy on Article 6 of the SPS Agreemen t, while some Members did not give the same 
treatment to regionalization.  The European Communities had provided evidence to the importing 
Member on regions free from the disease and access fo r inspection or any other relevant procedures as 
in accordance with Article 6.  Nevertheless, EC member States continued to experience unjustified 
export restrictions related to assumed disease prese nce in those regions.  For example, Germany, 
Belgium and the Netherlands had experienced impo rt restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza although they regained their disease free st atus in November 2003.  France, Italy and Spain 
experienced unjustified restrictions related to cla ssical swine fever due to the non-application of the 
principle of regionalization.  Furthermore, all  EC member States were officially free of FMD but 
continued to face unjustified import restrictions.  The European Communities urged all Members to 
respect the obligations of the SPS Agreement on regionalization and recognize the disease free status 
of EC member States and remove unjustified import restrictions 
241. In June 2004, the European Communities stated  that some WTO Members failed to recognize 
that all EC member States were officially free of FMD according to the OIE criteria.  No new 
outbreaks of FMD had been recorded in the terr itory of the European Communities since 2002. The 
European Communities considered the epidemic to be under control and the disease completely 
eradicated.  According to the OIE rules, countries co uld recover free status thre e months after the last 
identified case when a stamping out policy and serologi cal surveillance were applied.  There was no 
scientific justification for restrictive measures on EC products due to FMD.   
242. The European Communities also highlighted the lack of recognition of regionalization for 
Classical Swine Fever.  The European Communiti es had continued to recognize area disease-free 
status in several WTO Members who themselves fail ed to recognize regionalization in the European 
Communities.  The European Communities regularly  provided information to importing countries 
upon request concerning which EC member States could be considered free of Classical Swine Fever and had also facilitated inspections.  However, so me WTO Members continued to impose restrictions 
on imports from Italy and France based on concerns  about Classical Swine Fever.  The European 
Communities urged Members to respect Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, particularly related to Italy 
and France, and offered to provide any relevant information to support the implementation of this 
request.  
243. In October 2004,  the European Communities r ecalled that the European Communities had on 
previous occasions requested Members to adhere to the principles of regionalization and to recognize 
the disease-free status of EC member States.  Several Members had now removed their restrictions on 
some EC member States.  The European Comm unities would provide all necessary information to 
demonstrate its disease-free status to any WTO Member.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
 Page 57 
 
 
  244. In March 2005, the European Communities again drew attention to the fact that some WTO 
Members continued to apply unjustified restrictions on EC exports of animal products despite the fact 
that the whole EC territory was officially free of FMD.  No new outbreaks of  FMD had been recorded 
in the territory of the European Communities since 2002 and FMD was completely eradicated.  
Austria had last experienced an FMD outbreak in 1981 and some WTO Members still refused to 
recognize it as free from FMD. resulting in a comple te ban on imports of animal products from this 
country.  The European Communities urged all Me mbers to respect the obligations of the SPS 
Agreement with regard to recognition of disease-free status and to remove all unjustified import restrictions. 
245. The European Communities was in the position to demonstrate to importing WTO Members 
which regions of the European Communities could safely export live pigs, pork meat and pork meat 
products and which regions could not.  Spain was o fficially free from classical swine fever since July 
2002, according to international standards.  Howe ver some WTO Members continued to apply a ban 
on imports of pork meat products from Spain.  Acco rding to Article 2 of the SPS Agreement, there 
was no scientific justification to ban imports of products from a country where a disease did not exist.  
The European Communities urged all Members to r espect the obligations of the SPS Agreement with 
regard to the recognition of disease free status for classical swine fever and to remove all related unjustified import restrictions on live pigs, pork me at and pork meat products not only from Spain but 
from all other EC member States free of the disease. 
235. Certain Members - Import restrictions on EC  exports of live birds, meat, meat products 
and other derivates due to avian influenza 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005/Februar y 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 46-48) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
246. In October 2005, the European Communities stat ed that it had learned, thanks to SPS 
notifications, that four WTO Members had recently  imposed a ban on EC poultry products including 
live birds, poultry meat and meat products, feathers, animal feed from poultry meat, bone and feather meal, and other by-products of poultry, on the gro und of the presence of avian influenza (AI) in the 
EC territory.  Three of these Members had target ed the ban to Greece, although the suspected case of 
AI reported by Greece in October 2005 had proved to  be negative for highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (HPAI).  The current ban imposed on Gr eece was not based on science nor on any existing 
OIE standards.  It was therefore inconsistent  with Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement.   
247. The European Communities had b een recognized by the OIE as free of AI and had rapidly 
taken effective safeguard measures to protect and maintain this status.  A fourth WTO Member had banned imports of the same poultry products from the entire world.  According to OIE rules and the 
provisions of the SPS Agreement, bans on bird pro ducts should only apply to regions affected by 
HPAI.  The European Communities urged these four  Members to bring their legislation into 
compliance with international rules a nd Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6/Add.1 
Page 58  
 
  248. Canada requested Members to cautiously react to low pathogenic AI outbreaks, especially in 
light of the current worldwide sensitivity on AI-rela ted issues, in order to not discourage Members 
from notifying such outbreaks.  Suriname stated hi s country's concern about the EC ban on imports of 
wild birds from Suriname.  Suriname was an AI-fr ee country, as had been proven by investigations by 
UK authorities tracking an infected bird detected in a shipment of wild birds.  Investigations had 
demonstrated that the infected bird did not originate from Suriname.  Other birds in the same 
consignment, sent to other EC countries, had show n no sign of the disease.  Suriname's exports of 
wild birds were suffering from the EC ban and Suri name questioned when its exports could resume. 
 
__________