WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
27 March 2008 
 (08-1345) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
Addendum  
  
RESOLVED ISSUES 
 
 
 This part of document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8 c ontains summary information regarding all 
issues which were raised in the SPS Committee between 1995 and 200 7, and on which a resolution 
was reported prior to 2007.  
                                                     
 
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.8/Add.3 
Page ii  
 
   
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page
 
ARGENTINA ...................................................................................................................... ...................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA .............................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....1 
4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, 
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapo re, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, 
United States.................................................................................................................. ......1
 
60. Import restrictions on bovine semen and embryos, milk and milk products .......................3  
125. BSE related measures ..........................................................................................................5  
AUSTRALIA...................................................................................................................... ....................6  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA ..............................................6  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...................6  
45. Import restrictions on cheese – Maintained by Australia and New Zealand .......................6  
49. Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid .................................................7  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....8 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States 
[See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... ..8 
8. Ban on salmon imports ........................................................................................................8  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................8  
86. Access of California table grapes ........................................................................................8  
194. Restrictions on fresh grapes.................................................................................................9  
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA................................................................................11  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA ......................................................................................................................11  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..11 
122. FMD Restrictions............................................................................................................... 11 
BOLIVIA ........................................................................................................................ ......................11  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA .................................................11  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..11 
80. Restrictions on poultry meat imports.................................................................................11  
112. FMD trade restrictions.......................................................................................................12  
BRAZIL ......................................................................................................................... .......................13  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL ...................................................13   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page iii 
 
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..13 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 13
 
156. Notification G/SPS/N/BRA/74 and 75  on BSE-related measures.....................................13  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................14  
14. Restrictions on imported wheat .........................................................................................14  
126. Import requirements for seed potatoes...............................................................................14  
CANADA ......................................................................................................................... .....................16  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA .................................................16  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..16 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States 
[See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 16 
87. Measures affecting imports of prod ucts containing Brazilian beef ...................................16  
CHILE.......................................................................................................................... .........................16  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE .....................................................16  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..16 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 16
 
104. FMD restrictions............................................................................................................... .17 
113. Pet food import requirements ............................................................................................18  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................18  
16. Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit.........................................................................18  
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... ........................19  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA ....................................................19  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................19  
127. Import ban on products of Dutch origin ............................................................................19  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..20 
157. Quarantine measures for the entry and exit of aquatic products........................................20  
196. Measures on US poultry ....................................................................................................21  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................22  
115. Import restrictions for citrus and ot her fruits related to fruit fly........................................22  
COLOMBIA....................................................................................................................... ..................22  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA .............................................22  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page iv  
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..22
 
116. FMD restrictions............................................................................................................... .22 
CUBA ........................................................................................................................... .........................24  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA......................................................24  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..24 
129. Import restrictions on spiced pork and salted meat products.............................................24  
CZECH REPUBLIC................................................................................................................. ...........25  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC .................................25  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................25  
10. Imports of potatoes ............................................................................................................ 25 
51. Prohibition of poultry meat imports from Thailand...........................................................25  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..26 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States 
[See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 26 
30. Regulation concerning wa rehouses and silos ....................................................................26  
EL SALVADOR.................................................................................................................... ...............27  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR .......................................27  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..27 
71. Restrictions on meat and dairy products............................................................................27  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................2 7 
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ...................27  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................27  
11. Restriction on levels of copper and cadmi um in imported squid – Maintained by 
Spain .......................................................................................................................... ........27  
39. Maximum levels for certain contamin ants (aflatoxins) in foodstuffs................................28  
53. Emergency measures on citrus pulp ..................................................................................31  
167. Restrictions on honey imports ...........................................................................................31  
231. Restrictions on Cinnamon..................................................................................................32  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................33  
27. Citrus canker.................................................................................................................. ....33  
HONDURAS....................................................................................................................... ..................34  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS ............................................34  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................34  
20. Restrictions on imports of rough rice ................................................................................34   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page v 
 
 
  HUNGARY........................................................................................................................ ...................35  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY HUNGARY ..............................................35  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..35 
90. Restrictions on bovine products.........................................................................................35  
91. Restrictions on  pork products ...........................................................................................35  
ICELAND ........................................................................................................................ .....................36  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ICELAND ................................................36  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..36 
75. Notification on meat and meat products............................................................................36  
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ...................36  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA .............................................36  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..36 
132. Import restrictions on dairy products.................................................................................36  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................37  
82. Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit ..........................................................................37  
ISRAEL......................................................................................................................... ........................38  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL ...................................................38  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..38 
22. Measures affecting imports of bovine meat.......................................................................38  
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ........................39  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN .....................................................39  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................39  
12. Testing requirements for different varieties of apples, cherries and nectarines.................39  
100. Import measures on apples due  to fire blight.....................................................................39  
172. Restrictions on imports of mangoes...................................................................................40  
REPUBLIC OF KOREA.............................................................................................................. .......42  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY REPUBLIC OF KOREA ............................42  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................42  
1. Shelf-life requirements ......................................................................................................42  
35. Import ban on frozen poultry.............................................................................................43  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................44  
202. Septoria controls on horticultural products........................................................................44  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............44  
2. Import clearance measures and practices...........................................................................44  
MALAYSIA....................................................................................................................... ...................46  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA .............................................46  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page vi  
 
  Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................46
 
66. Notifications related to dioxin – Main tained by Malaysia and Singapore.........................46  
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ......................46  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO .................................................46  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................46  
36. Import prohibition of milled rice .......................................................................................46  
164. Restrictions on the importation of dry beans.....................................................................48  
NEW ZEALAND .................................................................................................................... .............49  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND ......................................49  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................49  
45. Import restrictions on cheese .............................................................................................49  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................50  
101. Proposed import prohibition of commodity-c ountry combinations of fresh cut 
flowers and foliage ............................................................................................................ 50 
NORWAY......................................................................................................................... ....................50  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY NORWAY ................................................50  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..50 
3. Restrictions on gelatin imports ..........................................................................................50  
PANAMA......................................................................................................................... .....................51  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA .................................................51  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................51  
24. Requirements for certification of consumer rice ...............................................................51  
PHILIPPINES.................................................................................................................... ..................52  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY PHILIPPINES ..........................................52  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................52  
150. Certification of meat  and dairy products ...........................................................................52  
POLAND......................................................................................................................... ......................53  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND .................................................53  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................53  
57. Requirements for imports of milk and milk products........................................................53  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..53 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 53
 
68. Notifications on veterinary measures an d measures on animal products including 
gelatin ........................................................................................................................ ........53   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page vii 
 
 
  ROMANIA ........................................................................................................................ ...................54  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA ...............................................54  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..54 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States 
[See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 54 
SINGAPORE...................................................................................................................... ..................55  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY SINGAPORE ............................................55  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................55  
66. Notifications related to dioxin ...........................................................................................55  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..55 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States 
[See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 55 
SLOVAK REPUBLIC ................................................................................................................ .........55  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY SLOVAK REPUBLIC ...............................55  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..55 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States 
[See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 55 
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................55  
41. Restrictions on imports of apples, pears and quinces ........................................................55  
42. Import restrictions on potatoes ..........................................................................................56  
SLOVENIA....................................................................................................................... ....................57  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY SLOVENIA ..............................................57  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..57 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States 
[See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 57 
SWITZERLAND.................................................................................................................... ..............57  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY SWITZERLAND .......................................57  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................57  
54. Notifications regarding import re quirements on meat and eggs........................................57  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................58  
28. Notification on wheat, rye and triticale .............................................................................58  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page viii  
 
  SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND 
MATSU (CHINESE TAIPEI)......................................................................................................... ....59
 
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI ....................................59  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..59 
180. Heat treatment for meat and bone meal in poultry for pet food.........................................59  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................59  
181. Import restrictions on potatoes ..........................................................................................59  
TURKEY ......................................................................................................................... .....................60  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY .................................................60  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..60 
76. Ban on pet food imports ....................................................................................................60  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................61  
92. Restrictions on banana imports..........................................................................................61  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. ..............62  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED STATES .....................................62  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................62  
188. Delisting of France from countries authorized to export certain meat and meat 
products to the United States .............................................................................................62  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..63 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States 
[See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 63 
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................63  
69. Import restrictions on rhododendrons in growing medium ...............................................63  
73. Imports of citrus fruit........................................................................................................ .63 
182. Implementation of the international sta ndard for phytosanitary measures on wood 
packaging (ISPM 15).........................................................................................................64   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 1 
 
 
  ARGENTINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA Animal Health and Zoonoses 4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States 
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5 and Corr.1, paras. 6-9), October 1996 ( G/SPS/R/6, 
para. 53), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 56), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, 
paras. 10-19), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 15-17), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, para. 9), March 1998 (G /SPS/R/14, para. 14), June 1998 
(G/SPS/R/11, para. 29), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 26-30), 
November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras.  17-18), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, 
para. 8) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/56, G/SPS/N/AUS/57, G/SPS/N/CAN/18, G/SPS/N/CHL/1, 
G/SPS/N/CHL/6, G/SPS/N/CHL/31, G/SPS/N/CZE/14 and Add.1, 
G/SPS/N/SGP/1, G/SPS/W/68, G/SPS/W/79, G/SPS/GN/5, G/SPS/GEN/71, WT/DS133 
Solution: Formal consultations under dis pute settlement procedures requested with 
Slovakia in May 1998 (DS133).  Slova k transit ban removed, mutually 
satisfactory solution found with regard to Slovak importation of Swiss milk 
and milk products; Chilean import meas ure modified; some other measures 
withdrawn/revised 
Status: Resolved 
 
1. In May 1996, Switzerland presented informati on on its BSE situation,  and noted that a 
number of countries had restricted imports of da iry products, although both the OIE and the WHO 
concluded that dairy products posed no risk in resp ect of BSE.  In October 1996, Switzerland provided 
an update of its sanitary prescriptions, culling and veteri nary measures to be adopted at the border.   In 
March 1997, Switzerland indicated that although it was a country of low incidence of BSE, it had been 
subject to a number of BSE-related trade restricti ons, some of which could not be justified under WTO 
rules.  The Chairman agreed to  hold informal consultations with interested Members on 21 March 
1997. 
2. In July 1997, Switzerland reported that alt hough there had been some positive developments, 
problems remained.  Switzerland addressed some questions to the Members concerned, stressing its interest to find rapid solutions through bilateral discuss ions.  Argentina informed the Committee that it 
had replied to Swiss questions  and would provide more information; Switzerland expressed 
satisfaction with this progress.  Brazil noted that its import prohibition of bovine semen was based on 
the classification of bovine semen as a medium risk  product, and on Brazil's BSE-free status.  At the 
subsequent meeting of the relevant MERCOSUR work ing group in July 1997, Brazil would attempt to 
reclassify bovine semen as low risk. 
3. Canada noted that there had been no changes to its import conditions for the importation of 
live cattle, bovine embryos, bovine semen, bovine meat or meat products from Switzerland, although a 
draft document on BSE policies was being discussed .  Canada was receiving comments on its draft G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 2  
 
  measure, which would be in accordance with the OIE Code.  Canada was concerned with the lack of 
quantitative or qualitative parameters for the diffe rentiation between countries with high and low 
incidence of BSE, and re-extended an  invitation for bilateral discussions. 
4. The United States stressed that it did not proh ibit the importation of meat.  BSE-related 
measures were subject to continue d review based on scientific evidence, which, for example, had led 
to the opening of trade in bovine semen, althou gh other matters remained unresolved.  The United 
States remained open to scientific discussion in th e area.  Switzerland noted that the United States 
required certification for dried meat, and hoped that the reviewed US policies would be in line with 
OIE recommendations. 
5. Romania informed the Committee that it had held bilateral discussions with Switzerland.  Its 
policies were in line with OIE recommendations, and would be notified shortly.  Switzerland 
expressed satisfaction with the results of bilateral ta lks.  Poland noted that imports to Poland were 
carried out on the grounds of individual import permi ssions, but that no application had been received 
from Switzerland.  Switzerland requested bilateral cl arifications.  Singapore indicated that countries 
exporting beef were required to certify BSE-freedom fo r six years.  It believed this measure to be 
consistent with the SPS Agreement, and planned to notify it shortly. 
6. The Czech Republic was concerned about con tinued occurrence of BSE in Switzerland, 
especially since the Czech Republic was BSE-free.  However, imports of b ovine semen, brain and 
embryos from Switzerland were not restricted.  The Czech Republic would prefer to continue 
discussion at the level of veterinary experts.  The European Communities noted that measures were 
taken on a national basis by EC member States, but we re screened for conformity with EC law before 
being notified to WTO.  In the case of BSE, this  had taken more time than expected, and although 
there was no common position within the European Communities, changes to the policy were being 
considered.  The European Communities indicat ed it was going beyond OIE recommendations, and 
indicated that it would be useful to conti nue discussions with the relevant experts. 
7. In October 1997, Switzerland indicated that its BSE-situation was improving, but that 
numerous restrictions continued to affect Swiss ex ports of live cattle, genetic material, meat, and in 
certain cases milk products.  Bila teral consultations were continui ng.  Switzerland questioned why the 
Australian quarantine requirements for the impor tation of bovine embryos and semen applied to 
Switzerland only, and whether countries with actu al BSE incidents were subject to similar 
requirements.  Switzerland also wondered why the objective of the new requirements was to "develop 
import requirements…based on intern ational standards", whereas the notification indicated that no 
international standard existed.  Australia rep lied that it had develope d generic conditions for 
importation of ruminants and rumi nant genetic material from me mber States of the European 
Communities, but had established bilateral conditions with other trading partners.  The conditions in 
the notified draft requirements for Switzerland were  in accordance with Australia's general import 
policy relating to BSE promulgated in January 1995, and were equivalent to BSE requirements for all 
other countries.  International standards existed and Australia did not consider that the notified draft 
measures deviated from such standards. 
8. Switzerland questioned why the Czech import restri ction on imports of cattle over six months 
applied to Switzerland only, and whether countries w ith actual BSE incidents were subject to similar 
requirements.  The Czech Republic replied that an  individual import permit was required for traders 
interested in importing goods subject to veterina ry control, including live animals.  The Czech 
authorities considered the epizootic situation in the country of origin, frequency of newly found cases 
of contagious diseases, efficiency of eradication programmes, etc.  The import approach was always 
the same and included discussion with the veterinary authorities of the country of origin.  The system 
distinguished between countries with sporadic pos itive cases and those with continued occurrence of 
cases, like Switzerland.  Although the measure s in place in Switzerland corresponded to OIE  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 3 
 
 
  recommendations, they had not fully eliminated BSE-related risks, and had not prevented new 
infections.  Unlike other countries, Switzerland slaught ered and destroyed only BSE-affected animals, 
not all animals kept and fed in the same place.  Such animals could be considered as a source of 
disease.  Trade between the Czech Republic a nd the European Communities was based on EC 
measures which represented a higher rate of preven tion than the OIE recommendations.  The Czech 
Republic offered to continue bilate ral discussions with Switzerland. 
9. In March 1998, Switzerland reported that most  BSE-related measures against its exports 
remained in place although they deviated from OI E recommendations.  However, some Members had 
eliminated or revised their measure s, especially on genetic products.  With respect to the European 
Communities, Switzerland hoped that recent developments would lead to a more predictable situation.  
In June 1998, Switzerland and th e Slovak Republic reported on prog ress achieved during consultations 
and in September 1998, Switzerland reported that the transit ban had been removed, although 
discussions on market access for dairy products continued. 
10. In September 1998, Switzerland re iterated concerns with import prohibitions on Swiss bovine 
semen, which seemed to contradict WTO provision s regarding non-discrimination, risk assessment, 
notification and consultation.  Switzerland was still awaiting answers to its detailed questions to the 
relevant Members, or re-admission of Swiss expor ts.  The European Communities reported on useful 
bilateral contacts with Switzerland, and indicated that the European Comm unities was undertaking an 
inventory of all national BSE-relate d measures in order to notify them.  In addition, the European 
Communities would propose that EC member St ates harmonize their conditions for import from 
Switzerland.  Chile indicated that, based on OIE recommendations on BSE, it had authorized bovine 
semen imports from France and was processing a re quest from the United Kingdom.  No official 
request to export bovine semen ha d been received from Switzerland. 
11. In November 1998, Switzerland and the Slovak Rep ublic reported that they were close to a 
short-term solution regarding the Slovak import ban on Swiss dairy.  In the longer term, a few 
technical issues remained to be settled.  In Ma rch 1999, Switzerland informed the Committee that a 
mutually satisfactory solution regarding Slovak importa tion of Swiss milk and milk products had been 
found.  Chile reported that its measure affecti ng imports of bovine semen had been modified. 
 
60. Import restrictions on bovine semen  and embryos, milk and milk products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: South Africa, Switzerland 
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras.  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 (G/SPS/R/39, para. 91), 
February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, para. 91) 
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: Restrictions on bovine semen and embryos lifted 
Status: Resolved 
 
12. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 4  
 
  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. 
13. 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 low -risk products.  Subsequently notified import 
requirements (G/SPS/N/ARG/47) established count ry freedom from BSE or low BSE risk as 
preconditions for importing frozen bovine semen, al though 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 quest ions raised in March 1999,  and raised several new 
questions. 
14. Argentina replied that it had provided answers to the EC questions both bilaterally and in 
G/SPS/GEN/135.  Argentina had received several 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 ques tions before the measure was adopted. 
15. 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. 
16. 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 particular  from the United Kingdom.  The European Communities 
had replied to Argentina's extensive questionnaire,  but Argentina had failed to provide a risk 
assessment to justify its measures.  The European Communities ur ged 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 adopt ed a resolution which imposed restrictions on dairy 
products.  A new, less restrictive sanitary certificat e 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. 
17. In October 2001, the European Communities i ndicated that despite statements from the 
Argentine authorities that dairy products would be reclassified, Argentina 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 che ese from Germany; Swedish cacao oil butter; and 
dairy products from the United Kingdom and France.   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 Ar gentine measure.  The European Co mmunities was considering eventual 
recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.  Ar gentina explained that it did not maintain any 
restriction on EC dairy products; they just had to be certified as coming from establishments where no  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 5 
 
 
  case, or suspected case, of BSE ha d been recorded.  A counter propo sal from EC member States that 
milk come from establishments where there had be en 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. 
18. In June 2005, the European Communities recalle d that exports of bovine semen from some 
EC member States to Argentina were still suffering restrictions.  According to OIE rules, bovine 
semen should not be subjected to r estrictions regardless 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 bovine semen and embryos.  Argentina replied that it was in 
the process of adjusting its legislation to the ne w OIE directive adopted in May 2005. Argentina was 
currently working bilaterally with several EC member  States to resolve the issue of export certificates. 
19. 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. 
 
125. BSE related measures 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras. 60-63), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 46-49), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 78-80) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/65 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
20. Canada indicated that Argentina appeared to  have copied the EC geographical BSE risk 
categorization scheme (GBR), and had not followed an  international standard or conducted a risk 
assessment.  Canada had been given a Level 2 rati ng, although it had no BS E.  Argentina had not 
requested any data from Canada.  Furthermore, Canada questioned why the scheme had been notified 
as an emergency measure, and why Argentina had fo llowed the EC measures instead of carrying out 
its own analysis. The United States shared Canada's concern and encouraged Argentina to consider the 
BSE risk assessment and data from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. 
21. Argentina explained that its measures were base d on the available information.  If a Member 
felt the categorization was unjust, it should present the necessary technical information, in which case 
the review would be given priority.  Argentina be lieved its system was in compliance with the OIE 
Code.  Argentina had to take urgent action to update its BSE measures a nd any delay would have 
posed unacceptable risks to Argentina's own BSE status. 
22. In November 2002, Canada reported that it ha d provided a large body of information to 
Argentina but had not yet had a response.  Canada  did not have BSE and did not understand how it 
could have been given such a rating without any ri sk assessment having been conducted by Argentina.  
The United States, which was also free of BSE, sh ared Canada's concern.  The United States 
encouraged Argentina, as well as other countries, to  make use of the information resulting from the 
BSE risk assessment undertaken by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 6  
 
  23. Argentina reported that it had reviewed the me asure and amended the provisions in Annex II 
which contained the country ra nking based on a risk assessment.  These amendments would be 
undertaken soon.  Argentina was completing its anal ysis of the additional information submitted by 
Canada, and a reply would s oon be provided bilaterally. 
24. In April 2003, Canada reported that the aut horities in Argentina and Uruguay had agreed to 
undertake their own BSE risk assessments.  The Un ited States noted that Argentina's resolution 
allowed for the re-categorisation of the BSE status  of the United States.  However, a significant 
amount of scientific evidence had been provided to Argentina which exceeded the OIE criteria for 
recognition as a BSE-free country.  Any restrictions were unjustified and Argentina was requested to 
lift its restrictions on the importation of sweet br eads.  Argentina reported that substantive progress 
had been made on this issue and was confident that further bilateral consultations would result in its 
resolution. 
25. In September 2004, Canada informed the Secret ariat that the issue had been resolved with 
Argentina. 
 AUSTRALIA CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA Food safety 45. Import restrictions on cheese – Main tained by Australia and New Zealand 
Raised by: Switzerland, European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11 and Co rr.1, paras. 41-42b), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, paras. 21-23), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 9-13), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/80, G/SPS/N/AUS/107, G/SPS/N/NZL/48 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
26. In June 1998, Switzerland reported that, without  advance notice, New Zealand and Australia 
had stopped imports of hard cheeses made from unpasteurized milk, on the grounds that they did not meet the sanitary requirements.  Australia and New Zealand responded that the relevant import 
measure required inactivation of pathogenic organisms.   This measure had been put in place before 1 
January 1995 and therefore not been  notified, but compliance had recently been reinforced.  ANZFA 
was evaluating the applications received fro m Switzerland and the European Communities. 
27. In November 1998, the European Communities requested Australia to identify the 
international standard on which its import ban on Ro quefort cheese was based, or to provide scientific 
justification and a risk assessment.  Australia re sponded that its food standards required all cheese to 
be made from pasteurized milk, or milk that had undergone an equivalent process.  Australia's risk 
assessment on Roquefort cheese had identified poten tial problems with pathogenic micro-organisms, 
in particular entero-hemorrhagic E-coli.  Furt her data from the Roquefort manufacturers had been 
received and were being evaluated.  In additi on to food safety assessments, Roquefort cheese was 
being evaluated for risks to animal health.  Draft revised import conditions w ould be notified soon, and  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 7 
 
 
  comments solicited.  A final decision was likely in the first quarter of 1999 on both food safety and 
animal health aspects. 
28. In March 1999, Switzerland asked about the progress of ANZFA's procedures. Australia 
responded that ANZFA had conducted a risk assessment.   The documentation would be published on 
17 March 1999 for public comment, after which a final recommendation would be made.  Swiss 
officials in Canberra would be br iefed on 16 March 1999.  Regarding EC concerns, Australia reported 
that according to a risk assessment initiated by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA), 
French Roquefort did not comply with Australian requi rements.  French officials in Canberra would be 
briefed on the issue.  In November 2000, Switzerland reported that a mutually satisfactory solution had 
been found. 
 
49. Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by: Malaysia 
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 83-85), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 24-25), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15,  para. 68), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, 
para. 21), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/106;  see also G/SPS/13, G/SPS/GEN/137 and 
G/SPS/W/107/Rev.1 
Solution: Australian tolerance level modified in June 2000 
Status: Resolved 
 
29. In September 1998, the Philippines voiced con cerns that Australia's import prohibition on 
Philippine sauces containing benzoic acid were disc riminatory, since sauces from New Zealand were 
allowed entry even if they contained benzoic acid.   Australia indicated willingness to pursue this 
matter with the Philippines.  Both Members noted the absence of an in ternational standard for benzoic 
acid in sauces.  In November 1998, the Philippines re ported that bilateral cons ultations had not been 
successful.  Australia explained that the differe nt rules applying to sauces from New Zealand were 
transitional, and stemmed from a treaty establishi ng a common food standards system for both 
countries.  Australia expected that the final standa rd for food additives would be implemented in the 
first half of 1999. 
30. In July 1999, the Philippines again reported on bilateral consultati ons.  Completion of 
Australia's new food code was foreseen for late 1999.   Australia confirmed that benzoic acid would be 
allowed as an additive under the new food standards code. 
31. In June 2000, the Philippines requested an update  of the situation from Australia.  Australia 
reported that the relevant part of the Australian Food Standards Code had been revised.  The present 
restriction on benzoic acid would be removed and replaced on 22 June  2000 with a tolerance level of 
1000 milligrams per kilogram for benzoates in sauces, applicable to all products sold in the Australian 
market, whether domestic or imported. 
32. In October 2001, the Philippines confirmed that Au stralia had modified the tolerance level for 
benzoic acid in sauces, and that de tention of Philippine sauces in Aust ralia due to benzoic acid had not 
been noted in Hold Order Lists since June 2000. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 8  
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
8. Ban on salmon imports 
Raised by: Canada, United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, paras. 13-15), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, 
para. 58) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/3, WT/DS18, WT/DS26 
Solution: Dispute settlement (DS18 and DS 26, respectively).  Mutually agreed 
resolution between Canada and Australia reported in May 2000 
Status: Resolved 
 
33. In October 1996, the United States reported th at Australia maintained a ban on North 
American fresh, chilled or frozen salmon on the grounds that imports might transmit diseases and 
pathogens to Australian fishery stocks.  In 1994,  Australia published a draft risk assessment which 
indicated there was little risk from imported North American salmon.  However, Australia did not 
adjust its measure to reflect the results of that risk assessment, but instead undertook another risk 
assessment, completed in May 1996, which again faile d to find a scientific basis for maintaining the 
ban.  The United States expected that when the fi nal report was published, the ban would be lifted, 
especially since the salmon in question complied with OIE standards. 
34. Australia indicated that the 1995 draft risk ass essment had been revised in response to the 
large number of comments received.  Comments, in cluding from the United Stated and Canada, had 
again been received on the 1996 draft risk assessment,  which would be finalized by the end of 1996.  
Australia noted that the OIE standa rd did not meet its appropriate le vel of protection.  In March 1997, 
Canada and the United States again noted their concer n that Australia had decided to maintain its ban 
on salmon imports.  Canada had formally requested  the establishment of a panel in the Dispute 
Settlement Body. 
 
Plant Health 
86. Access of California table grapes 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Philippines, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  92-94), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 65-
67), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ra. 26), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
para. 39) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Mutually agreed solution on a series of risk management procedures 
Status: Resolved  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 9 
 
 
   
35. In March 2001, the United States indicated th at for the past 10 years there had been 
difficulties in exporting California table grapes to Au stralia.  Even under Australia's new IRA process, 
delays and requests for additional information a nd documentation had contin ued, although nearly a 
year had elapsed since the release of the impor t risk assessment (IRA).  Australia had conducted 
additional studies, the latest focussing on the glassy-winged sharpshooter and Pierce's Disease.  The 
United States maintained that these additional studies we re not justified, and urged Australia to modify 
its import restrictions consistent with the IRA and its obligations under Ar ticle 5.1.  Australia 
explained that the administrative process was not complete until the Director of Plant and Animal 
Quarantine made a final decision.  Australia was fr ee of Pierce's Disease and believed that there was a 
need for further scientific research.  A mission of scientists to the United States in 2000 had raised 
questions about changes in the risk profile which re quired more information.  Australia was willing to 
cooperate with the United States to learn more a bout this disease and its vector.  The Philippines, on 
behalf of ASEAN, shared the US concern regard ing Australia's phytosanitary regulatory process. 
36. In July 2001, the United States expressed disappoi ntment at Australia's apparent abandonment 
of its commitment to a transparent, science-based  risk assessment system.  The IRA process did not 
seem to have an end.  Australia had initiated ne w studies whose chief purpose seemed to be to delay 
lifting the import prohibition on California table grapes.   Australia had pointed to the relatively recent 
introduction of a leaf-hopping insect, the glassy-winge d sharpshooter, although its own IRA had noted 
that the risks associated with this pest would be negligible.  Australia had decided more research on 
risk mitigation for glassy-winged sharpshooters would be necessary.  Table grapes in California were 
subject to numerous mitigations, and the United St ates was willing to address legitimate scientific 
concerns.  However, additional research on a pe st not found in shipments of table grapes was 
completely without scientific merit and was a delaying tactic.  Australia indicated that the change in 
risk profile associated with the spread of Pi erce's disease, and of its vector, the glassy-winged 
sharpshooter, in California required additional sci entific information to ensure protection from 
quarantine risk. 
37. In October 2001, the United States informed the Committee that constructive consultations 
had been held to discuss quarantine procedures.  Both  countries had agreed to continue the dialogue to 
work toward a resolution of the outstanding issues.  Australia was confident that a mutually acceptable 
solution could be found soon. 
38. In March 2002, the United States reported that  following consultations, Australia and the 
United States had agreed on a series of risk mana gement procedures to allow for the export of 
California table grapes to Australia.  The risk mana gement practices would be re-evaluated after one 
year. 
 
194. Restrictions on fresh grapes 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by: New Zealand, European Communities 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, pa ra. 216), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 34-36), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/ Rev.1, paras. 62-64), March 2006 
(G/SPS/R/40, para. 51) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 10  
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/148/Add.1, G/SPS/N/AUS/153/Add.1, 
G/SPS/N/AUS/148/Add.2, G/SPS/N/AUS/148/Add.3 
Solution: Imports from Chile pe rmitted under certain conditions 
Status: Resolved 
 
39. In October 2004, Chile stated that in 1998 Aust ralia was requested to indicate its market 
access requirements for table grapes.  Following in itial 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 fina lize the import risk analysis as quickly as possible. 
40. 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 th e new IRA for Chilean fresh grapes had been published 
and subjected to a 45-day consultation period.  Chile  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 Communities 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. 
41. Australia clarified that Biosecurity Australia had become a prescribed agency in December 
2004 and shortly after had reviewed and reissued se veral 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 comment s on Biosecurity Australia's website. 
42. 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. 
43. 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 accessing the Australian market for years. 
44. Australia assured Chile that it was committed to  deliver a science-based risk assessment as 
soon as possible.  The final IRA for table grap es 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). 
45. In March 2006, Chile reported that after discussions  with Australian authorities, a joint work 
plan had been agreed to resolve the issue. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 11 
 
 
  BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 122. FMD Restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 20), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 46-47)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
46. Argentina requested the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to accept imports of animal-based 
products that had followed the risk mitigation proce dures identified in the OIE Animal Health Code.  
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated that Argentina had not been listed as an FMD-free zone 
in an OIE Bulletin dated 17 March 2002, and that the Pan-American Health Office had reported on a 
new FMD outbreak in Argentina in a 6 March 2002 report. 
47. In June 2002, Argentina noted that despite bilateral contacts, the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela had not provided any further informati on nor its risk assessment to Argentina.  The 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicated that it recognized the region of Argentina south of the 42nd parallel as free from FMD without vaccination, and was prepared to import meat from this 
region.  With respect to the other regions of Arge ntina, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela followed 
the OIE recommendations, however it was willing to  consult with Argentina on the matter. 
48. In March 2004, the Argentina reported that  the issue of the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela's FMD restrictions had been resolved. 
 BOLIVIA CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 80. Restrictions on poultry meat imports 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/ 20, para. 94), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, 
paras. 33-35), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 132) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Agreement on a protocol and progress reported in July 2001 
Status: Resolved 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 12  
 
  49. In November 2000, Chile reported that in Augus t 2000 it had consulted with the authorities of 
Bolivia, in the context of Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, regarding requirements on poultry meat 
imports with respect to Inclusion body hepatitis.  Th is disease was endemic to Bolivia and restrictions 
on imports from Chile were not justified.  Chile hop ed that this issue would soon be resolved.  The 
representative of Bolivia indicated that he woul d transmit this information to his authorities. 
50. In March 2001, Chile noted that Bolivia had fa iled to notify the measure, and requested that a 
scientific risk assessment be carried out as quickly as possible.  Bilateral discussions on the issue had 
ceased since August 2000.  Bolivia explained that import conditions for poultr y and other agricultural 
products had been changed because of problems wh ich Inclusion body hepatitis caused in the bird 
population and the associated negative economic impact.  During the last five years, Bolivia's state 
veterinary laboratories had determined the clinical  absence of Inclusion body hepatitis in Bolivia, but 
the disease had been diagnosed in Chile.  Regarding preventive vaccination, Bolivia stated that this 
was justifiable only if the virus was present on a fa rm.  Secondly, total protection against the disease 
was only possible if the serotype present in the vaccination was the same as that present in farm 
strains.  Thirdly, successful protection depended on other immuno-suppressant factors, and in Chile 
there was a risk of Avian infectious anaemia.  Bo livia's National Food and Agricultural Health Service 
was revising the standard, and would inform Chile of the results.  Bolivia wish ed to solve the matter 
expediently and to the benefit of both parties. 
51. In July 2001, Chile informed the Committee th at the sanitary authorities of both countries had 
agreed to work on a protocol, and thanked Bolivia for the progress made. 
 112. FMD trade restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 30) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
52. In March 2002, Argentina reported that it was e ngaged in bilateral cons ultations with Bolivia 
on this matter. 
53. In March 2004, Argentina indicated that the i ssue of Bolivia's FMD trade restrictions had 
been resolved. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 13 
 
 
  BRAZIL 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL Animal Health and Zoonoses 4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
156. Notification G/SPS/N/BRA/74 a nd 75 on BSE-related measures 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, par as. 91-93), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 163)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/74 and G/SPS/N/BRA/75 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
54. Canada expressed concern over the way Brazil applied the EC geographical BSE risk (GBR) 
system as the basis for classifyin g countries according to their BSE risk.  Canada requested that Brazil 
conduct its own BSE risk analysis and classification of Canada and stated that it had sent a copy of its 
BSE risk assessment to the Brazilian authorities for their consideration. 
55. The United States also questioned Brazil's use of the EC risk assessment classifications and 
noted that the European Communities had stated that  its risk assessment classification system was not 
meant to serve as an international standard.  Chap ter 2.3.13 of the OIE International Health Code 
established the criteria for the determination of BSE ri sk of a country or region.  The United States met 
the OIE criteria for a country free of BSE and had completed a risk assessment  on all the factors for 
BSE occurrence.  Active surveillance for BSE c ontinued at levels far exceeding those of the 
international standard and a strong BSE awareness programme had been developed for veterinarians, 
farmers and others working with ruminants.  The OIE Code recognized that certain tissues could be 
traded if they originated in countries, such as the United States, which was free of BSE.  The United 
States believed that any measures against its exports  of cattle, beef or any other products because of 
BSE were unjustified and not cons istent with WTO obligations. 
56. Brazil noted that human health concerns were at the root of the measures which referred to 
both the OIE international standards and the EC clas sification system.  Thus far, Brazil had not been 
able to conduct a risk assessment for all countries and the provision of Canada's risk assessment would 
assist the Brazilian authorities in this regard.  Brazil would take into considerat ion decisions reached at 
the OIE International Committee meeting in  May 2003 when reviewing its measures. 
57. In June 2003, Brazil reported that it had notified six regulations relating to BSE. 
58. In September 2004, Canada informed the Secret ariat that the issue had been resolved with 
Brazil. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 14  
 
  Plant Health 
14. Restrictions on imported wheat 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  16-17), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Import of certain classes of wheat allowed as of early 2001 
Status: Resolved 
 
59. In March 1997, the United States raised concer n regarding Brazilian restrictions on wheat 
imports intended to prevent the establishment of the fungus tilletia controversa (TCK bunt or Dwarf 
bunt).  However, a 1996 bilateral agreement w as based on the understanding that the fungus in 
question could not be established in Brazil, and th e United States was not aware of scientific evidence 
that might alter this conclusion.  Brazil responde d that it had implemented new legislation on risk 
assessment and risk management for several produc ts as a result of harmonization efforts in the 
MERCOSUR context.  Thus, a certificate of origin  was required for wheat, to establish that the 
product originated in a pest-free zone.  Scientific consultations between Braz ilian and US experts had 
yet to produce a final report on the risk posed by tilletia controversa and tilletia indica (Karnal bunt).  
The 1996 bilateral agreement did not preclude Braz il from applying its internal legislation. 
60. In July 2001, the United States reported that  following extensive technical consultations, 
Brazil had issued new import instructions in early  2001 that allow import of certain classes of US 
wheat (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States c onsidered this trade concern resolved. 
 
126. Import requirements for seed potatoes 
Raised by: Canada, European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras. 24-26), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 63-68), October 2003 (G/SPS /R/31, paras. 21-22), June 2004 
(G/SPS/R/34, paras. 55-56) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Change in Brazil's regulation 
Status: Resolved 
 
61. The European Communities reported that on 13  November 2001, the Brazilian authorities had 
given notice of new measures on imports of see d potatoes but had provided no delay for their 
implementation, no technical justifi cation and had not respected the need for transparency.  As one of 
the main suppliers to Brazil, th e European Communities had commented on the measures, but Brazil's 
initial response had not addressed the EC's concerns and,  in particular, had not identified the pest risk 
assessment justifying its measure.  The requested  information had been provided during bilateral 
consultations held before the SPS Committee meeti ng, and the European Communities looked forward 
to continuing the bilateral process with Brazil.  Canada expressed concern with Brazil's required 
export certification for non quarantine regulated pest s, in contradiction to internationally agreed 
principles and practices.  Canada was also i nvolved in bilateral discussion with the Brazilian  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 15 
 
 
  authorities and had requested Brazil to withdraw its measure.  Brazil indicated that it hoped subsequent 
technical consultations would resolve the issue. 
62. In November 2002, Canada expressed concerns  regarding Brazil's required certification for 
pests that were not of economic significance nor a signi ficant risk to plant health.  Canada considered 
this to be an issue of quality that was more appr opriately resolved between the buyer and the seller, 
and not by government certification schemes.  A lthough Canadian technical officials were working 
with Brazil to complete a risk assessment, this issu e was not being resolved as quickly as warranted.  
The European Communities requested Brazil to modi fy its measures on the basis of the technical 
arguments and proposals that had been made bi laterally and requested Brazil to postpone the 
implementation of these measures.  The United Stat es shared the concerns expressed by both Canada 
and the European Communities concerning the disr uption of trade in seed potatoes and requested 
Brazil to revise their policy as soon as possible. 
63. Brazil noted that consultations on the issue of seed potatoes had been carried out for some 
time.  Brazilian experts were considering a ne w proposal from the European Communities and hoped 
to provide a reply as soon as possible.  The Br azilian Directive aimed at enhancing market 
opportunities in relation to previous regulations by  creating two new categories of imports for seed 
potatoes.  Brazil was interested in diversifying th eir source of suppliers of seed potatoes given the 
strategic importance of the sector for Brazil.  National producers were subject to the same considerations applicable to foreign providers, a nd his country's motivation could not be construed as 
restricting market access for seed potatoes.  Brazil invited the European Communities to send a team 
of experts to become familiar with their system, and witness the fact that national producers were 
subject to the same considerations as the foreign suppliers.  With respect to the comments made by 
Canada, Brazil recalled that the matter had been extensively discussed by authorities from both countries.  The Brazilian legislation required that  exporters of seed potatoes to Brazil have a 
certification system in place; apparently this was not the case for Canada.  Brazil added that the concerns voiced by the United States would be transmitted to the competent authorities. 
64. Canada clarified that Canada had a certification system for seed potatoes but that the 
certification system did not go into minor details on issues of quality.  In response to Brazil's invitation, the European Communities suggested that  Brazil should send a team of experts to inspect 
the production and food safety conditions within the European Communities. 
65. In October 2003, the European Communities reported that following discussions with Brazil 
in October 2002, the European Communities had pr esented a proposal for a possible solution  which 
Brazil had agreed to study.  Brazil explained that it was in the process of discussing new regulations 
and hoped that the issue would be resolved shortly. 
66. In June 2004, Canada reported that the issue of  Brazil's import requirements for seed potatoes 
had been resolved, and Brazil had made a number of  adjustments to its regulation of non-quarantine 
pests.  Canada reminded Members of the importa nce of notifying their SPS measures sufficiently in 
advance to provide an opportunity to comment befo re regulations were finalized to avoid future 
problems of this nature.  Brazil concurred that the issue had been resolved. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 16  
 
  CANADA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA Animal Health and Zoonoses 4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
87. Measures affecting imports of products containing Brazilian beef 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 2-5) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/245, G/SPS/W/108, G/SPS/N/CAN/39, G/SPS/N/CAN/94 
Solution: Suspension lifted in February 2001 
Status: Resolved 
 
67. Canada outlined its BSE policy, and informed Members of recent actions taken regarding the 
application of this policy.  Imports from Brazil had recently been suspended because Brazil had not 
provided the information requested by Canada in or der to carry out a risk assessment.  Canada was 
especially concerned about the traceability of cattle  imported from BSE-infected countries.  Canada 
had lifted its suspension after receipt and analysis  of documentation from Brazil and a visit to Brazil 
by scientists from Canada, the United States and Me xico.  Canada reported that Brazilian authorities 
had agreed to certification requirements.  Brazil regr etted that Canada had not handled this matter in a 
more transparent manner, with prior notification an d consultation.  Brazil recalled its BSE-free status 
according to OIE classification, and its ban on feeding of ruminant material to cattle.  Brazil had suffered many adverse effects from Canada's hasty embargo.  This had raised awareness of certain shortcomings of the multilateral system in cases like th is one.  Brazil announced its intention to present 
proposals to the SPS Committee and the General Council to address these problems. 
 
CHILE 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE Animal Health and Zoonoses 4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 17 
 
 
  104. FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil, United States 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 90-91), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 40-41), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, para. 126) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHL/102  
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
68. Argentina was concerned about Chile's draft regulations on fresh or frozen beef, which 
categorized countries according two categories: FMD-free with or without vaccination.  These draft 
rules seemed to be more restric tive than the OIE standard, which allowed for the possibility of 
permitting imports from FMD-infected countries or z ones as long as certain risk mitigation procedures 
had been used.  Argentina requested Chile to provide  sufficient scientific justification as required by 
Article 3.3.  Chile replied that that it was prematur e to discuss the issue as the draft regulation had not 
yet been circulated internationally and a bila teral technical meeting was scheduled for early 
November.  The deadline for public comments had only just passed and comme nts received had not 
yet been considered.  Chile had not yet been aske d to provide a risk assessment by the Argentine 
authorities. 
69. In March 2002,  Argentina referred to Chil ean notification G/SPS/N/CHL/102 on fresh and 
frozen meat controls.  It appeared Chile would perm it imports from countries in one of two categories: 
FMD free without vaccination or FMD free with vaccination.  The draft Chilean regulation did not 
allow for the import of fresh or frozen bovine meat fr om countries with zones infected with FMD.  As 
such, the requirement was more demanding than the OIE Animal Health Code which permitted 
imports if risk mitigation procedures were followe d in countries where FMD was present.  Argentina 
requested Chile to amend its draft regulation to refl ect the OIE code, or to show sufficient scientific 
grounds for not applying the international refere nce standard. Brazil supported Argentina and the 
United States stated that they had sent  written comments to Chile and hoped that these comments 
would be taken into account. 
70. Chile explained that the entry into force of the measures in question had been postponed twice 
to enable other trading partners to make add itional comments.  Controlling the 1987 outbreak of FMD 
in Chile had cost $8.5 million and forced the eradication of 30,000 an imals – a considerable cost for 
Chile.  Nevertheless, Chile planned to allow for the possibility of importing from countries not 
recognized as FMD free by the OIE, on  the basis of a risk assessment by the Chilean authorities.  In 
the case of Argentina, Chile had not learnt of the FMD outbreak in that country through their bilateral 
usual channels so the normal risk analysis pro cedures could not be applie d and emergency measures 
had had to be instituted. 
71. In June 2002, Argentina reported that progress had been made towards resolving this issue at 
bilateral meetings. 
72. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issue of Chile's FMD restrictions had been 
resolved. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 18  
 
  113. Pet food import requirements 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 21-23) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHL/104, G/SPS/GEN/302 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
73. Argentina raised concerns about Chile's draft st andard that would require imports of pet food 
containing meat and bonemeal from ruminants to undergo thermal treatment (G/SPS/N/CHL/104)..  
This requirement was stricter than the OIE reco mmendations and lacked sufficient scientific grounds 
and risk analysis to justify this higher level of protection (G/SPS/GEN/302).  The EU Scientific 
Steering Committee had given Argentina a Level 1 rati ng, i.e. "highly unlikely that domestic cattle are 
(clinically or pre-clinically) infected with BSE agent".  The United States indicated that the OIE 
Animal Health Code did not recommend that count ries free of BSE undertake th e treatment outlined in 
the notification.  The United States hoped that the Chilean authorities would take the results of the 
Harvard Risk Analysis into account. 
74. Chile stressed that a distinction had to be made between countries free of BSE and countries 
free of TSEs;  the draft Chilean measure also incl uded the latter within its scope.  Chile further 
clarified that the procedures had to be applied to ra w materials in pet food and not to the final product. 
75. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issu e of Chile's import requirements for pet food 
had been resolved. 
 
Plant Health 
16. Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  18-19), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127), 
October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, para. 36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GN/14, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Import access granted for wheat and fruits 
Status: Resolved 
 
76. In March 1997, the United States expressed con cerns that Chile's import requirements for 
wheat and fruit did not recognize regional condition s in line with the SPS Agreement, nor IPPC 
guidelines relating to pest-free areas.  With respect to wheat, Chile replied that the United States had 
not asked to be recognized as free of tilletia indica (K arnal bunt).  Regarding fruit, Chile stressed that 
it had recognized areas free of the fruit flies anastrepha fraterculus and ceratitis capitata 
(Mediterranean fruit fly) in California, whic h would facilitate the entry of US exports. 
77. In July 2001, the United States reported th at following bilateral discussion, Chile had 
removed restrictions on US wheat in October 1997 (G/SPS/GEN/265).  Import access had also been  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 19 
 
 
  granted for grapes, kiwis, avocados and lemons from California, apples and pears from Washington, 
and raspberries and shelled nuts from all US states .  According to the United States, Chile was 
preparing new rules to allow imports of additiona l products.  The United States was working with 
Chile on import conditions for other fruit. 
78. In October 2006, the United States and Ch ile both reported that following bilateral 
discussions held in August 2006, concerns relating to phytosanitary measures applied to US fruit 
exports to Chile had been resolved. 
 
CHINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA 
Food safety 
127. Import ban on products of Dutch origin 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras 31-32), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 73-74), April 2003 (G/SPS/ R/29, paras. 82-83), June 2003 
(G/SPS/R/30, paras. 39-40) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Ban on Dutch products lifted 
Status: Resolved 
 
79. The European Communities stated  that the Chinese authorities had suspended imports of all 
products of animal origin from the Netherlands af ter detection of one positive consignment in a single 
category of products. The European Communities consider ed this measure to be more trade restrictive 
than necessary, and noted that in  a similar situation with regard to Chinese products, the European 
Communities had given China sufficient time to so lve problems of detection of the presence of 
chloramphenicol in their products. 
80. China noted that the use of chloramphenicol in  animal foodstuffs had been prohibited in EC 
member States since 1994.  When the substance had been detected  in Dutch products, China had 
imposed a provisional ban and immediately alerted the Dutch authorities.  China had received part of 
the information requested, and was waiting for further information so as to review its measure.  The 
representative of China reported that the problem appa rently arose due to Dutch imports of feedstuffs 
from some eastern European countries, which gave ri se to concerns regarding Dutch import control 
measures, residue monitoring systems and export control measures. 
81. In November 2002, the European Communities reported that some progress had been made, 
however they requested China to increase efforts to resolve the i ssue.  The European Communities 
considered this a disproportionate reaction to a prob lem that could have been resolved in a mutually 
satisfactory manner without disrupting trade.  Chin a observed that other countries had faced similar 
problems with Dutch products.  His country was working to remove the ban remaining for some 
products.  For this purpose, the Netherlands had been invited to provide information to enable China to 
conduct a risk assessment, as soon as possible. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 20  
 
  82. In April 2003, the European Communities reported that China had lifted restrictions on 
certain products of no real trade significance, but no satisfactory solution had yet been found for a large number of animal products of Dutch origin, in  particular dairy products.  In December 2002, the 
European Communities had supplied the informati on requested by China.  In March 2003,  China 
requested additional information and indicated that an inspection mission would be necessary before 
anything further could be done.  The European Co mmunities questioned why this inspection visit had 
not been proposed sooner. 
83. China responded that it had lifted the ban on certain products on 25 December 2002, after 
receipt of information from the European Communi ties.  For other products, China had been waiting 
for almost one year on the Netherlands' residue monitoring and assessment controls.  Based on the 
information provided to date, China had identified si gnificant defects with respect to conformity with 
the relevant EC directives, including sampling of dairy products and casings.  An inspection visit was 
necessary to address these outstanding issues.  Th e receipt of additional information from the 
Netherlands on 21 March 2003 would enable the visit of China's inspection team in the near future. 
84. In June 2003, the European Communities repor ted that the Chinese embargo on products 
from the Netherlands had been lifted and the Europe an Communities believed this issue now resolved.  
China reaffirmed that the ban on Dutch products ha d been lifted after an inspection visit and the 
conclusion of a risk assessment. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
157. Quarantine measures for the entry and exit of aquatic products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  33-35), June 2003 (G /SPS/R/30, para. 39, 
59-60) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/17 
Solution: Measure notified and comments solicited 
Status: Resolved 
 
85. The European Communities noted that Decree No. 31, due to enter into force in June 2003, 
had not been notified to the WTO.  The European Communities, therefore, were not able to assess the 
decree and comment on it.  The Chinese authorities were requested to notify the measure to the WTO 
and suspend its entry into force for four additiona l months to allow Members a chance to comment on 
it and for permits to be issued to exporters.  Th e United States echoed the concerns of the European 
Communities. 
86. China explained that Decree 31 was notified to  the WTO as part of a notification covering 
China's existing laws on animal and plant quarantin e and on sanitation, inspection and certification of 
imports and exports of fo od products at the time of its WTO accession.  The purpose of the Decree 
was to standardize the standards of quarantine for aquatic animals and to improve transparency of 
procedures in line with WTO obligations on transpar ency and consistency.  The regulation did not 
contain any new technical requirements and thus did not need to be notified to the WTO.  Nonetheless, China would consider any comments from Members.  Ch ina had decided to delay the date of entry into 
force from 10 December 2002 until 12 June 2003, so  as to minimize any trade impact.  On 23 
December 2002, AQSIQ sent a notice to all forei gn embassies in Beijing and requested them to  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 21 
 
 
  identify which governmental authorities had responsibilit y for issuing certificates for export to China, 
and to submit a model certificate so that China could verify the certificates. 
87. In June 2003, the European Communities reporte d that China had notified its Decree 31 on 
aquatic products and had provided a comment period. 
 196. 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): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
88. In October 2004, the United States raised concerns over China's nation-wide ban on US 
poultry products following the detection of low pathogen ic avian influenza in the state of Delaware in 
February 2004.  The import ban was not modified accordingly when highly pathogenic avian influenza 
was detected in the state of Tex as, instead, it was applied to the en tire territory of the United States 
despite the fact that the highly pathogenic avian in fluenza outbreak was confined to a limited area.  
The outbreaks were brought under control and eradication, cleaning and disinfection of the highly pathogenic infected premises was completed 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 th e 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 implementa tion 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 we re the appropriate response, and sought the 
removal of all measures with respect to Canada. 
89. 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 pou ltry.  A risk assessment w as 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. 
90. 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.8/Add.3 
Page 22  
 
  Plant Health 
115. Import restrictions for citrus and other fruits related to fruit fly 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  24-25), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 
50-51), March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, para. 50) 
Relevant document(s): Raised Orally  
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
91. Argentina noted that bilateral consultations were on-going with the Chinese authorities to 
overcome difficulties related to the export of apples, pears and citrus fruit to China due to the latter's 
fruit-fly restrictions.  Various procedures, including  the use of cold treatment, were being used to 
overcome these difficulties.  Argentina requested the Chinese authorities to provide a list of 
outstanding questions related to risk assess ment and further information requests. 
92. China explained that Medfly and South American  fruit fly had not been reported in China and 
that a risk assessment by Chinese experts had conc luded that the risk of introducing these pests from 
Argentina was high.  China was requesting Argentina to provide data on the efficacy of cold treatment 
against fruit flies and to demonstrate that it coul d provide an equivalent level of protection in 
comparison with importing from pest-free areas.  Ch ina noted that establishing pest-free areas was not 
practicable for all pests, as recognized by the IPPC standard, and that countries with advanced research 
on fruit fly control and quarantine did not accept importation from countries where the pest had 
previously been present, even if they were curren tly pest-free.  China was open to bilateral technical 
discussions and joint research with Argentina on this issue. 
93. In June 2002, Argentina informed the Co mmittee that despite having held bilateral 
consultations with China, the issue was not resolved.  China indicated th at it was prepared to consider 
alternative treatments, but had not yet received any technical data demonstrating that establishing pest 
free production places and cold treatment could provid e equivalent protection to the establishment of 
pest-free areas. 
94. In March 2006, Argentina reported that this  specific trade concern had been resolved. 
 
COLOMBIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 116. FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 23 
 
 
  Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ras. 18-19), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, 
paras. 44-45), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 56-58), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 74-75), J une 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 44), 
October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, para. 37) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Restrictions lifted on bovine meat from Argentina 
Status: Resolved 
 
95. Argentina reported that Colombia had restricted  imports of certain products from Argentina 
on 26 September 2001, after the FMD outbreaks in Argentina.  Colombia had agreed to accept 
Argentine products for which risk mitigation techni ques could be applied according to the OIE code, 
and on 17 October 2001 had published new measures specifying those processed products which could 
be imported.  An inspection visit by the Colombian sanitary services in late October 2001 
complemented the information provided by the Arge ntine services.  However, Argentina was unable to 
export the products in question due to continued information requests from Colombia.  Colombia 
noted that it had replied to comments and ques tions from Argentina in November 2001 and March 
2002.  Argentina did not have establishments authori sed by the Colombian Livestock Institute (ICA) to 
export risk products to Colombia.  Colombia w as considering the process and production methods at 
Argentine establishments to inactiv ate the virus in risk materials, and if satisfactory, Argentine 
establishments would receive the necessary ICA authorization. 
96. In June 2002, Argentina indicated that its e xports continued to be restricted.  Colombia 
recalled that no plants in Argentina were current ly certified to export to Colombia.  However, 
Colombia had identified 10 plants in Argentina for which it needed to update information, and another 
38 plants which it proposed to visit for the first tim e.  Only 21 of these establishments had provided 
the information needed for the Colombian Agricultural Institute to undertake certification visits. 
97. In November 2002, Argentina noted that Colo mbia continued to prohibit Argentine meat 
despite the fact that there had been no new outbreaks in Argentina for nine months.  Colombia still had 
not carried out inspections of 21 packing plants wh ich Colombia claimed was necessary before trade in 
beef meat could resume.  Colombia stated that Ar gentina had blocked imports of fresh flowers from 
Colombia, and requested Argentina not to link these tw o issues.  Argentina indicated that there was no 
linkage to Colombian flowers, and asked Colombia  to provide information as to whether it would 
carry out the veterinary inspections in Argen tina so that beef meat exports could resume. 
98. In April 2003, Argentina noted that it ha d not received a reply from Colombia on the 
completed questionnaire concerning chilled products.  No in-situ inspections had taken place that 
would lead to a lifting of these restrictions nor  had Argentina received any requests for further 
information.  Noting Colombia's concern over cut fl owers, Argentina stated that it did not maintain 
any restriction on the import of flowers from Colombia .  Colombia stated that it enjoyed a favourable 
FMD situation but allowed the importation of low risk products.  High risk products, however, were 
banned from Argentina and this was notified to th e WTO. Establishments of origin had to be 
authorized by the Colombian san itary service and a programme of visits to Argentina had been 
planned.  Information from Argentine authorities was required with regard to the serological and 
epidemiological assessment of FMD, vaccination c overage, and the dates on which the status of 
disease freedom both with or without vaccination were achieved.   Colombia considered the Argentine 
decision to suspend the import of cut flowers  in November 2001, without a WTO notification, to be 
unjustified. 
99. In June 2003, Argentina reported that progr ess had been made and that inspections of 
Argentine meat plants by Colombian officials were  being planned.  Colombia noted that once the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 24  
 
  necessary information was provided by Argentin a, Colombian authorities would carry out the 
necessary missions.  The good progress in the case of bovi ne exports from Argentina to Colombia was 
similar to the progress made on the issue of flower exports from Colombia to Argentina. 
100. In October 2003, Argentina reported that the issu e had been resolved at the end of September 
2003, and that Colombia had eliminated its restrictio ns.  Colombia confirmed that the issue had been 
resolved, and that exports of flowers from Colomb ia to Argentina had also been discussed during the 
meeting. 
 
CUBA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
129. Import restrictions on spiced pork and salted meat products 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, par as. 15-16), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 
182 ) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/325 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
101. Argentina indicated that exports of spiced pork and salted meat products to Cuba were 
prohibited due to Cuba's zero risk approach w ith regard to FMD (G/SPS/GEN/325).  Argentina had 
submitted evidence that the FMD virus would not be  transmitted as a result of the processing of these 
products.  Moreover, Argentina's proposed certifi cation fully complied with OIE standards.  
Nonetheless, Cuba only permitted imports of bovine meat from countries free of FMD without vaccination.  Argentina requested Cuba to lift its restrictions, or to provide sufficient scientific 
evidence to justify its measure.  Cuba indicated th at bilateral consultations had been initiated on the 
issue. 
102. In November 2002, Argentina reported that a few technicalities needed to be sorted out before 
the issue was completely resolved. 
103. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issue had been resolved with Cuba. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 25 
 
 
  CZECH REPUBLIC 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC 
Food safety 10. Imports of potatoes 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, pa ra. 27), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, 
paras. 51-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CZE/6, G/SPS/N/CZE/12, G/SPS/GEN/42 
Solution: Second active ingredient approved, imports from EC resumed 
Status: Resolved 
 
104. In October 1996, the European Communities e xpressed concern that the Czech Republic had 
not specified a final date for comments on G/ SPS/N/CZE/12.  The Czech Republic committed to 
pursuing the matter bilaterally with the European  Communities.  In October 1997, the European 
Communities expressed concern over Czech import requirements for ware potatoes, which it did not 
believe to be based on scientific principles.  Moreove r, equivalent methods of sprout treatment were 
not allowed.  The European Communities pointed out  that a Codex standard existed for the active 
ingredient involved.  Argentina was concerned that  the treatment had to be applied before harvest, 
making a post-harvest decision to export to the Czech Republic impossible, although alternative 
treatment methods existed.  Furthermore, it was not clear to Argentina whether the registration 
procedure concerned the entire product formula or only the active ingredient. 
105. The Czech Republic explained that imported plant products could not be circulated 
domestically if they contained residues of active pl ant protection ingredients not registered in the 
Czech Republic.  Only one active ingredient had been approved, but registration procedures for a 
second one were under way.  The Czech Republic belie ved that bilateral channels for resolving the 
issue, notably within the framewor k of the European Association Agre ement, were far from exhausted. 
106. In February 2001, the Czech Republic repor ted that the second active agent had been 
approved since 16 March 1998, and imports from the European Communities had resumed. 
 
51. Prohibition of poultry meat imports from Thailand 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 81-82), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 39-40), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 16), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, 
para. 8), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 5) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CZE/16 
Solution: Czech measure lifted in October 1999 
Status: Resolved 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 26  
 
  107. In September 1998, Thailand indicated that si nce June 1998, the Czech Republic had stopped 
shipments of poultry meat from Thailand on the grounds that it contained levels of arsenic acid above 
the acceptable Czech limits.  Thailand indicated that  this measure was not scientifically justified and 
too trade restrictive, and asked whether the me asure was non-discriminatory.  The Czech Republic 
indicated that bilateral consultations had begun and would continue, and assured Thailand of the non-
discriminatory nature of its testing methodology. 
108. In November 1998, Thailand reporte d that bilateral consultations had been held, and that the 
Czech Republic had agreed to provide further clarif ications on the measure, as  well as a scientific 
justification.  The Czech Republic indicated that th e exchange of information would take place before 
a mission of Czech experts to Thailand in the near future. 
109. In March 1999, Thailand and the Czech Republic reported that bilatera l consultations were 
progressing, and that the problem might be resolved af ter a visit of Czech experts to Thailand, planned 
for April 1999.  In July 1999, Thailand reported that  the visit of Czech experts had been re-scheduled 
for September 1999.  The Czech Republic confirmed that  consultations were advancing.  In November 
1999, the Chairman informed the Committee that th e Czech Republic had recently notified the lifting 
of the measure from 1 October 1999. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
30. Regulation concerning warehouses and silos 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 54) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: EC satisfied with Czech clarifications. 
Status: Resolved 
 
110. The European Communities sought clarificati on of a Czech regulation requiring warehouses 
and silos for animal feed to be under state c ontrol for purposes of quality assurance.  The Czech 
Republic indicated that it wished to pursue the matte r bilaterally with EC veterinary authorities.  In 
February 2001, the Czech Republic indicated th at the European Communities had accepted its 
clarifications. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 27 
 
 
  EL SALVADOR 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR Animal Health and Zoonoses 71. Restrictions on meat and dairy products 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17,  para. 85), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, 
para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
111. In November 1999, Uruguay reported on problems wi th exports of meat and dairy products to 
El Salvador on sanitary grounds, although no concrete  sanitary problems or regulations had been 
mentioned.  The representative of El Salvador indi cated that these concerns would be transmitted to 
the appropriate authorities.  In November 2000, Ur uguay reported that the issue had been resolved. 
 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Food safety 11. Restriction on levels of copper and cadmiu m in imported squid – Maintained by Spain 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, paras. 16-17), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, 
para. 56), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
112. In October 1996, the United States noted that the Spanish regulation on levels of copper and 
other minerals in importe d squid was discriminatory since domestic and EC products were specifically 
exempted.  The European Communities replied that the scientific justification for imposing such a 
measure came from a WHO recommendation on maximum weekly intakes of metal.  Harmonization 
of the permitted levels of various metals acr oss the European Communities was currently being 
discussed in Brussels.  Argentina observed that the problem was not one of harmonization, but of national treatment. 
113. In March 1997, the United States recalled the di scriminatory nature of the measure.  The 
European Communities explained that although the no rm only referred to third countries, in practice it G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 28  
 
  was recognized by EC member States as well.  In addition, the majority of squid imported into Spain 
came from outside the European Communities.  Sin ce Spain had a particularly high consumption of 
the products in question, this had to be taken into account in  addition to WHO recommendations. 
114. In July 2001, the United States reported that it was not experiencing any problems in the area 
and was continuing to monitor the situation (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
 
39. Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in foodstuffs 
Raised by: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Gambia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, 
Philippines, Senegal, Thailand 
Supported by: Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Paki stan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South 
Africa, Turkey, United States, Uruguay 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 24-31), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, 
paras. 15-19), September 1998 (G/SPS /R/12, paras. 11-14), November 
1998 (G/SPS/R/13, para. 26), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 64-66), 
March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 29-30 and 86-87), July 2001 
(G/SPS/R/22, paras. 39-43), Octobe r 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 27-31), 
March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 140), J une 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 38-
39), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, pa ra. 175), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 51-52), June 2003 (G/SPS /R/30, paras. 66), March 2004 
(G/SPS/R/33, paras. 48-49) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/51, G/SPS/GEN/50, G/SPS/GEN/52, G/SPS/GEN/54, 
G/SPS/GEN/55, G/SPS/GEN/56, G/SPS/GEN/57, G/SPS/GEN/58, 
G/SPS/GEN/61, G/SPS/GEN/62, G/SPS/GEN/63, G/SPS/GEN/93, G/SPS/R/28 
Solution: Maximum levels for some pr oducts and sampling procedures revised 
Status: Resolved 
 
115. In March 1998, a number of countries argued that the EC proposal to set new maximum 
levels for aflatoxins would impose severe restri ctions on trade while not resulting in a significant 
reduction in health risk to consumers.  The proposal did not seem to be based on a proper risk assessment.  Furthermore, the proposed samp ling procedure was unduly costly, burdensome and 
unjust.  Although an internationa l standard on the subject did no t yet exist, the Codex Committee on 
Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) was cons idering the matter.  The complaining Members 
felt that the timing was unfortunate, and urged th e European Communities to review the proposed 
measure. 
116. The European Communities noted that there had been no consensus in the CCFAC on the 
issue; although many countries supported the Code x norm, the European Communities did not.  The 
proposed measure reflected the EC level of protection.   With regard to the sampling procedure, since 
contamination appeared in a small percentage of kernels, one simple sample was not sufficient to minimize risk to consumers.  The proposed methods were already used by some EC member States.  
The European Communities planned to evaluate the comments received until May 1998 and formalize 
the proposal in June 1998.  The measure would enter into effect relatively shortly afterwards. 
117. In June 1998, the European Communities reported that it had forwarded a revised proposal to 
its member States.  The EC Standing Committ ee on Foodstuffs would consider the proposed 
modifications on 17-18 June 1998.  Apart from revi sing some of the maximum levels, the European  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 29 
 
 
  Communities was considering trans itional arrangements, and the new measures would not enter into 
force before 1 January 1999. 
118. In September 1998, Bolivia informed the Co mmittee that the proposed EC measure would 
have severe effects on Bolivian exports of Brazil nuts.  Bolivia requested to see the EC risk 
assessment, and indicated it was prepared to enter into bilateral discussions with the European 
Communities in order to find a mutually agreeab le solution.  The United States encouraged the 
European Communities to take into account the recommendations contained in the FAO/WHO risk 
assessments establishing maximum levels for afla toxin in consumer-ready products.  The ASEAN 
countries expressed concern with maximum levels in milk, which would affect developing countries' 
feed exports. 
119. The European Communities noted that the dead line for comments had been extended to allow 
for further comments from Members.  The European  Communities had also revised its proposal, and 
was prepared to raise the proposed maximum levels in  nuts.  With regard to milk, the proposed EC 
levels were in line with the standards being discussed in Codex. 
120. In November 1998, the Chairman informed the Committee about bilateral consultations 
between Bolivia and the European Communities whic h he had been requested to facilitate.  The 
Chairman reported that the discussions had been very fruitful, and had helped Bolivia to better 
understand the rationale behind the EC  measures, as well as the EC procedures followed.  They had 
also helped the EC understanding of the potential effect of some of its measures on the Bolivian 
industry.  Technical consultations were continuing. 
121. In March 1999, Bolivia reported that it had presen ted a plan to improve its Brazil nuts, and 
consultations with the European Communities were o ngoing.  Bolivia considered that this was a good 
case for the application of special and differential tr eatment.  Peru indicated that several countries had 
brought their problems with the new EC regulation on aflatoxins to the attention of the European 
Communities through their missions in Brussels, without having obtained a satisfactory response.  In particular, the European Communities had not presented a risk assessment.  The European 
Communities assured Bolivia that their common examin ation of the problem would continue through a 
rapid procedure.  In response to other Members, the European Communities indicated that there had 
been ample time for comments, and that the prop osal had been revised in response to comments 
received.  On cereals, the European Communities was prepared to continue accepting comments until 
1 July 1999 and to modify the measure if there was scientific justification. 
122. In March 2001, Argentina raised concerns over EC maximum levels of contaminants in food 
products and sampling methods for aflatoxins in peanuts, other nuts, dried fruits and cereals.  
Argentina was preparing a technical submission for th e European Communities to be circulated before 
the next SPS Committee meeting. The European Communities agreed to car efully consider the 
technical document.  Regarding cereals, the Eu ropean Communities reminded Members that the 
relevant legislation had been adopted in 2000 a nd would come into effect as of 1 July 2001. 
123. Bolivia recalled the information it had provided regarding EC aflatoxin levels in Brazil nuts 
(G/SPS/GEN/93).  The European Communities had not provided a risk analysis for this measure.  Bolivia outlined the socio-economic and ecological implications of the measure for the area of 
production, as well as the effects on the economy.  The European Communities indicated that the 
science had been explained in detail in the Committee.   An EC expert had visited Bolivia in May 2000 
to evaluate the situation.  The Commission belie ved that the problems in Bolivia stemmed from 
needed improvements in the production chain and the equipment used.  A project to address these 
issues had been included in the EU Aid Programme. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 30  
 
  124. In July 2001, Bolivia expressed concern about the long time it was taking to resolve the issue.  
Argentina and Chile inquired about the technical assistance and special a nd differential treatment 
aspects of the issue.  The European Communities noted  that Bolivia was on a high priority list for EC 
cooperation activities.  The expert mission in Ma y 2000 had concluded that  Bolivian products had 
been meeting EC aflatoxin levels, and at least th ree private laboratories were equipped to carry out 
accurate tests.  The European Communities remained willing to discuss technical difficulties and to 
agree on practical solutions. The European Co mmunities was promoting a project to improve 
production and storage processes and the livelihood of nut collectors, to be executed in 2002; it had 
proposed a certification procedure and hoped that Bolivia recognized the efforts being made to 
improve Brazil nut production in the region concerned.  Bolivia confirmed that bilateral meetings had 
taken place, including a discussion on possible technical  cooperation programmes.  However, so far no 
practical measures had been taken to reduce the negative effect on trade. 
125. In October 2001, Bolivia reported that the European Communities still had not presented a 
risk analysis to justify its maximum levels for aflatoxins in Brazil nuts, nor applied special and 
differential treatment or justified why higher levels  were permitted in similar products.  The measure 
was having a severe effect on the Bolivian economy.  Promises of technical assistance were not 
beneficial, and Bolivia wished to see a solution based on acceptance by the European Communities of 
a certificate.  The European Communities indicated that prolonged bilateral consultations had taken 
place prior to the entry into force of the measu re, and that expected trade concerns had not 
materialized. The risk assessment had been di scussed on numerous occasions in the SPS Committee 
and in JECFA.  EC technical assistance had the go al of ensuring compliance with EC standards.  A 
national certification and accreditation mechanism was being implemented which would allow the 
three Bolivian laboratories to issue internationally  recognized certificates.  However, no follow-up 
information had been received from Bolivia on this possible solution. 
126. In March 2002, Bolivia indicated that there ha d been no progress on the issue.  The European 
Communities reported that it had agreed to acce pt pre-shipment certification from accredited 
laboratories in Bolivia in order to avoid costly  sampling of the product upon arrival in Europe.  
However, no further information had been provi ded by Bolivia regarding the accreditation of 
laboratories nor a proposal for the pre-shipment certificate.  Nonetheless, shipments of Brazil nuts from Bolivia met all of the EC's requirements, a nd the quantity of shipments continued to grow. 
127. In June 2002, Bolivia noted that although the la rger Bolivian exporters were able to meet the 
EC requirements at considerable costs and difficulti es, smaller exporters could not fulfil the EC's 
requirements.  Bolivia requested information on th e manner in which the EC requirements for a quality 
control system were being applied.  The Europ ean Communities stressed again that no consignments 
of Brazil nuts from Bolivia had been blocked due to  aflatoxin.  In fact, both the volume and value 
imported from Bolivia had increased in recent year s.  The EC Scientific Committee for Food had 
identified aflatoxins as among the most carcinogenic and mutagenic substances known, and intake had 
to be reduced to the lowest levels possible.  Although the European Commission had agreed to accept 
certification from authorized Bolivian laborat ories, Bolivia had not provided the necessary 
information. 
128. In April 2003, Bolivia stated that a pr oposal had been submitted to the European 
Communities to strengthen the Bolivian system of certification for export of Brazil nuts.  He hoped 
that a technical exchange would take place on th is proposal in the near future.  The European 
Communities noted that its authorities would need so me time to examine the Bolivian proposal.  The 
European Communities favoured certification at the point of departure by accredited laboratories and 
commended the Bolivian authorities for their proposal. 
129. In June 2003, Bolivia informed Members that a bilateral meeting had resulted in a favourable 
outcome and Bolivia should soon receive the re quired permission.  The European Communities  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 31 
 
 
  indicated that the procedures for technical assist ance were now in place and hoped the issue would 
soon be regarded as solved. 
130. In March 2004, Bolivia informed Members that bilateral consultations were held with the 
European Communities on 16 March 2 004 and details of the assessment visit for the certification of 
chestnuts for export to the European Communities had been finalized.  The European Communities 
stated that it would continue to cooperate with Bolivia to finalize the assistance programme. 
 
53. Emergency measures on citrus pulp  
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,  paras. 49-50), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
para. 34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/62 
Solution: Emergency measures lifted 
Status: Resolved 
 
131. In September 1998, Brazil expressed concer ns regarding EC emergency notification 
G/SPS/N/EEC/62, which mentioned very high levels of dioxin found in citrus pu lp pellets from Brazil.  
Brazil pointed out that this accident had already been fully dealt with.  Brazilian authorities were 
maintaining bilateral talks with the Europ ean Communities on the subject.  The European 
Communities explained that this accident had i nvolved 90 000 tonnes of contaminated citrus pulp 
pellets destined for animal feed.  After scientific  discussions, including Brazil's private sector, the EC 
authorities had decided that the lack of information on the origin of the contamination, the amount of 
stocks involved and the lack of a solution just ified the emergency measure.  The European 
Communities hoped that ongoing contacts with the Br azilian authorities would result in a solution 
before the end of the year. 
132. In October 2001,  Brazil reported that following two technical visits by EC officials to 
evaluate Brazilian control systems, the emergency me asures on dioxin in citrus pulp had been lifted. 
 
167. Restrictions on honey imports 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: China, Mexico 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 25-27) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
133. The United States stated that on 22 May 2003, the European Communities initiated 
administrative steps to prohibit imports of honey from the United States.  EC Directive 96-23 required exporting countries to submit a residue plan.  If the residue plan did not contain sufficient guarantees of compliance with EC residue limits, the country would not be authorised to export honey to the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 32  
 
  European Communities.  The United States considered the EC regime to be far more trade restrictive 
than necessary, and whilst not having identical ru les, the United States had comprehensive control 
mechanisms.  Furthermore, honey was consumed in very small quantities and should be considered a 
"low risk" food.  The existing rules in the United St ates were more than adequate to avoid harm to 
human health.  China and Mexico supported the concerns raised by the United States. 
134. The European Communities explained that it was a net importer of honey and that measures 
were in place to protect consumers.  The request for a residue surveillance plan was a general rule 
which applied to all products, a nd a high level of surveillance was needed for honey as it tended to be 
consumed by children.  The United States had receive d a warning in February 2003 that the absence of 
a residue plan would lead to their removal from the list of countries approved for import of honey to 
the European Communities.  Th e European Communities was, however, willing to examine any 
residue plans provided by the United States. 
 
231. Restrictions on Cinnamon 
Raised by: Sri Lanka 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 52-58), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 52-58), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, para. 38) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/597 
Solution: Codex standard adopted in 2006 
Status: Resolved 
 
135. In October 2005 and February 2006, Sri Lanka reported problems with exports of Ceylon 
cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum) to the European Co mmunities, 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 permitted in Codex an d 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, a nd as there was no direct application of sulphur to 
cinnamon, no residual content of SO2was exp ected to be present in the final product. 
136. 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 referen ce to a particular additiv e or to the use of an 
additive in a specific food did not imply that the addi tive was unsafe or unsuitable for use in food.  Sri 
Lanka queried whether the EC Scientific Committee 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 level of protec tion required in this situation and if the European Communities had 
taken into account the objective of minimizing negativ e trade effects when determining the appropriate 
level of SPS protection.  Sri Lanka suggested th ere was scope for the Eu ropean Communities to 
provide longer time-frames for Sri Lanka to comp ly with EC SPS measures on cinnamon, as provided  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 33 
 
 
  for in Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement.  Sri La nka requested the European Communities to suspend 
its current de facto ban while his country pursued the development of a Code x standard on MRLs for 
cinnamon.  Sri Lanka also requested, as a transiti onal measure, that the European Communities accept 
Sri Lankan cinnamon with an SO2 content up to  150ppm until the maximum residue limit for SO2 in 
cinnamon were defined at the international level. 
137. 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. 
138. 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.  Th e 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. 
139. 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 Codex Committee on Food Add itives and Contaminants 
(CCFAC).  The pace of finalization of the discu ssions depended on cont ributions and views of 
CCFAC participants.  Sulphur dioxide had been ev aluated by the JECFA  in 1998 and was currently 
allowed on a few commodities.  The CCFAC would m eet 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. 
140. In October 2006, Sri Lanka reported that through bilateral discussion, concerns regarding the 
issue of EC restrictions on the importation of cinnamon had been resolved to their mutual satisfaction.  
In July 2006, an international standard for cinnam on was established and it ha d also been approved by 
Civil Society Coalition (CSC) in Geneva.  Sri Lanka noted that these issues had been resolved through 
the cooperation of the European Communities. 
 
Plant Health 
27. Citrus canker 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil, Chile, South Africa, Uruguay 
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras.  30-31), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 6-
8), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 31-33) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/46, G/SPS/N/EEC/47, G/SPS/GEN/21, G/SPS/GEN/26 
Solution: Measure revised 
Status: Resolved 
 
141. In July 1997, Argentina requested bilateral consultations with EC experts on the proposed 
measure on citrus canker, and that the measure be  suspended during these consultations.  South Africa 
requested that the European Comm unities reassess its measures in light of the fact that South Africa 
was free from citrus canker.  The European Commun ities noted that it was preparing a response to the 
Argentine concern, and was open to consultations w ith interested parties.  The European Communities 
was moving from a system with internal restricti ons in the production areas of Italy, Greece and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 34  
 
  Corsica to a truly single market with free movement of goods.  With no restriction on internal 
movement of fruit, and considering the risk of introduction and the relate d economic consequences, 
alternative protection for the main producing areas ha d to be considered.  This included monitoring 
requirements in the exporting country, treatment and certification. The European Communities considered that its measures were based on science and minimized trade effects. 
142. In March 1998, the European Communities re ported that, in response to constructive 
consultations organized by the Chairman and i nvolving Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil and South 
Africa, the measure had been revised and subse quently adopted.  The revised text included the 
possibility for recognition of equivalent certificati on systems.  Argentina agreed, but noted that 
negotiations on equivalence were not yet finished. 
143. In June 1998, the European Communities indicated  that it had come to the conclusion that, for 
the time being, Argentina could not objectively dem onstrate the equivalence of its control measures 
with EC requirements.  Argentina requested info rmation on the risk assessment undertaken by the 
European Communities. 
144. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the i ssue had been resolved with the European 
Communities. 
 
HONDURAS 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS Plant Health 20. Restrictions on imports of rough rice 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 55), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Restrictions lifted 
Status: Resolved 
 
145. In March 1997, the United States expressed concern that Honduras had not lifted its 
restrictions on imports of rough rice.  Hondur as assured the Committee that its authorities would 
attempt to find a rapid solution to the problem. 
146. In July 2001, the United States reported that Honduras had lifted its restrictions in 1997 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States cons iders this trade concern resolved. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 35 
 
 
  HUNGARY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HUNGARY Animal Health and Zoonoses 90. Restrictions on bovine products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 16-17) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/230 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
147. Canada indicated that Hungary had suspended imports of all bovine products from Canada 
due to fears over BSE, although Canada was BSE -free and BSE could not be transmitted by bovine 
semen.  Canada was willing to continue working with  the Hungarian authorities to resolve this matter 
as quickly as possible.  The United States drew attention to the OIE document (G/SPS/GEN/230) which listed products that were sa fe from BSE and encouraged Memb ers to review their measures 
accordingly.  Hungary reported that since several  Members had recently imposed import bans on 
certain BSE-free countries, Hungarian consumers had begun to question the safety of animals and 
products from these countries.  Hungarian authoriti es had made prion tests a mandatory condition for 
veterinary import licenses for live cattle, fresh meats a nd non-heat-treated produc ts of bovine origin.  
Bovine semen was not subject to the import restrictions. 
148. In September 2004, Canada reported that the issue of Hungary's restrictions on bovine 
products had been resolved. 
 
91. Restrictions on  pork products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
149. Canada reported that as of Ja nuary 2001, Hungarian importers of pork products from Canada 
had not been able to obtain import certificates from Hungary's veterinary services.  A similar disruption had occurred the previous year, and had b een resolved through bilateral discussion.  Canada 
asked Hungary to resume issuing import permits, or to provide a legitimate sci entific justification for 
the measure.  Hungary referred to fears over BSE transmission and cross-cont amination of foodstuffs, 
and was willing to enter into bilate ral consultations on the matter.  Canada requested clarification on 
the relevance of feed cross-contamination to the importation of frozen pork. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 36  
 
  150. In September 2004, Canada reporte d that the issue of Hungary's  restrictions on pork products 
had been resolved. 
 
ICELAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ICELAND 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
75. Notification on meat and meat products  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 27) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ISL/1 
Solution: Market opening measure confirmed 
Status: Resolved 
 
151. Argentina expressed interest in the notifica tion of this measure permitting meat imports 
without heat treatment into Iceland since it app eared to open the market to higher quality beef, 
although this was not entirely clear from the notification.  Iceland confirmed that meat could be 
imported without heat treatment, provided all n ecessary certificates and documents were submitted. 
152. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issu e of Iceland's notification on meat and meat 
products had been resolved. 
 INDONESIA CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 132. Import restrictions on dairy products  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, par as. 17-18), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 54-55), April 2003 (G/SPS/ R/29, paras. 72-73), June 2003 
(G/SPS/R/30, para. 43), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 50-51) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally, G/SPS/GEN/324 
Solution: Plants authorized to export to Indonesia 
Status: Resolved 
 
153. Argentina stated that as a result of the outbreak of FMD in 2001, Indonesia had banned 
imports of milk products, inconsis tent with the SPS Agreement and OIE guidelines.  The OIE Code  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 37 
 
 
  stipulated that milk products be accepted if the sanita ry authority of the exporting country certified that 
the necessary requirements had been introduced.  Ind onesian had not provided the opportunity for the 
Argentine National Agriculture and Food Quality and Health Service (SENASA) to certify the 
requirements set forth by the OIE.  Indonesia indi cated that import restrictions imposed on Argentina 
due to FMD only applied to fresh milk.  Other dair y products, including skimmed milk, cream, butter, 
cheese and yoghurt, were not restricted.  Restrictions on fresh milk were based on the fact that 
Argentina was not listed by the OIE as a country with zones free of FMD. 
154. In November 2002, Argentina indicated that some practical difficulties still impeded 
Argentine dairy products, other than liquid milk, fro m entering Indonesia.  Indonesia reported that as 
Argentina fulfilled the first provisions a questionna ire which would provided to them, Indonesia would 
send an inspection team to Argentina.  Indonesia hoped that this would lead to a resolution of the 
problem. 
155. In April 2003, Argentina reported that it ha d completed the questionnaire and extended an 
invitation to Indonesia but Indonesia had not yet sent an inspection team.  Restrictions on imports of 
Argentine milk remained and Arge ntina requested clarification from Indonesia.  Indonesia recalled that 
a questionnaire had been sent to Argentina on 27 January  2003.  Out of five plants in Argentina, only 
one had the necessary controls.  If Argentina could provide information on its control programmes, an 
investigating officer would be sent to conduct an on-s ite review of the plants in Argentina.  Indonesia 
was confident that further bilateral efforts would resolve this issue. 
156. In June 2003, Argentina reported that good prog ress had been made toward the resolution of 
the problem.  Indonesia confirmed that the bilatera l consultations had led to  an agreement to send 
Indonesian inspectors to Argentina. 
157. In March 2004, Argentina informed Members th at Indonesian officials had conducted a risk 
analysis on Argentine dairy products and concl uded that Argentina's exports did not pose a FMD 
threat.  Restrictions on Argentina were lifted an d this issue was considered resolved.  Indonesia 
reported that an inspection team from Indonesia had visited Argentina on 12-20 January 2004 and 
Argentina's monitoring system with respect to FMD was found to be satisfactory.  Two of the five 
plants inspected met Indonesia's requirements and were eligible to export milk powder to Indonesia as 
long as they continued to meet the OIE recommendations and guidelines. 
 
Plant Health 
82. Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit 
Raised by: New Zealand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 8-10), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, 
paras. 44-45), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 54-55) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/219 
Solution: Restrictions lifted on 26 October 2001 
Status: Resolved 
 
158. In November 2000, New Zealand noted that Indonesia had imposed restrictions on fresh fruit 
from New Zealand since the discovery of two fruit flies in a residential area of New Zealand in May 1996.  No fruit flies were ever found outside a 200 meter zone around the initial incursion, and no fruit G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 38  
 
  flies were trapped after three weeks.  A number of WTO Members imposed restrictions on New 
Zealand fruit products following the initial incursion, but these restric tions were progressively lifted.  
Indonesia, however, continued to prohibit imports of fruit produced within a 15-km radius of the 
incursion and required cold treatment of all fruit from New Zealand.  At bilateral consultations held in 
November 2000,  Indonesia had undertaken to review  the information which New Zealand had already 
provided.  Indonesia took note of New Zealand's concerns, and clarified that it needed further 
documentation supporting New Zealand's claim of fr eedom from Mediterranean fruit fly.  However, 
Indonesia had no intention of maintaining meas ures which were not justifiable under the SPS 
Agreement and remained open to further consultations  in order to achieve an acceptable resolution. 
159. In March 2001, New Zealand reported that bila teral consultations had taken place, and that 
Indonesia had indicated willingness to inspect the fruit fly surveillance and phytosanitary export 
assurance systems in New Zealand.  Indonesia confir med that officials were planning to visit New 
Zealand in the near future.  Indonesia hoped that th e visit would result in an expeditious solution.  
Indonesian officials visited New Zealand in May 2001 to review New Zealand's surveillance and 
export assurance systems.  They verified that the fruit fly has been successfu lly eradicated.  Indonesia 
agreed the requirement of cold treatment and Mediterranean fruit fly free production areas were no 
longer necessary.  It advised that it would lift exis ting restrictions on the importation of fresh fruit 
from New Zealand on 1 August 2001.  Indonesia notif ied (G/SPS/N/IDN/16) on 26 October 2001 that 
it was lifting its restrictions on New Zealand fresh fruit effective from the date of notification. 
 
ISRAEL 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 22. Measures affecting imports of bovine meat 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by: Argentina, Brazil 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  9-11), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 6), 
November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
160. In March 1997, Uruguay indicated that Israel had adopted BSE-related measures, including 
requirements that bovine meat come from cattle with a maximum age of 36 months, which had not 
been notified to WTO.  Since the measure did not  take into account the sanitary conditions in the 
country of origin, the potential effect on bilateral tr ade was serious.  Israel replied that it had notified 
exporting countries of the planned measure which w as based on a questionnaire  circulated to beef 
exporting countries.  Israel took note of the concer ns expressed.  In July 1997, Uruguay reported that 
bilateral consultation were taking place and that progress had been sa tisfactory.  In November 2000, 
Uruguay reported that the issue had been resolved. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 39 
 
 
  JAPAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN Plant Health 12. Testing requirements for different varieties of apples, cherries and nectarines 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, paras. 11-12), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, 
para. 57), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265, WT/DS/76/R, WT/DS/76/AB/R 
Solution: Dispute settlement (WT/DS/76) .  Panel established 18 November 1997; 
panel report issued 27 October 1998;  Appellate Body report issued 
22 February 1999;  reports adopted 19 March 1999.  Mutually agreed 
solution reported September 2001 
Status: Resolved 
 
161. In October 1996, the United States reported  that, under a 1995 bilateral agreement, Japan 
allowed two varieties of US apples into its market.  US suppliers had to cond uct lengthy and expensive 
tests to demonstrate that combined treatment of methyl bromide and cold storage was effective in 
killing codling moths on both varieties.  These and ot her tests had demonstrated that the effectiveness 
of this treatment did not vary among different vari eties of fruit.  Nevertheless, Japan continued to 
block the introduction of new varieties of US fruit by requiring such redundant testing.  The United 
States had formally initiated a consultation process with Japan under Article 5.8 of the SPS 
Agreement.  Japan indicated that the formal exchange would be fo llowed by a clarification process 
involving technical experts until a solution was reached  based on scientific principles.  In March 1997, 
the United States indicated it was reviewing new in formation provided by Japan.  Japan noted that 
bilateral efforts would continue in order to reach a solution. 
162. In a document introduced in July 2001, the United States indicated that despite extensive 
consultations with Japan, the United States was s till awaiting implementation of the Panel decision 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  A mutually satisfactor y solution was notified in August 2001. 
 
100. Import measures on apples due to 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, par as. 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: Dispute settlement WT/DS245.  Pa nel established 3 June  2002; panel report 
issued 15 July 2003, Appellate Body report issued 26 November 2003, 
reports 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 
Status: Resolved G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 40  
 
  163. 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 bilateral discussions on this issue.  Chile requested that the 
follow-up to this situation be reported to the Commi ttee.  Japan confirmed that the joint research had 
been completed, and indicated that a risk analys is was being conducted based on the results.  There 
were some difficulties in finalizing the evaluation based solely on these results.  Japan desired to 
continue the technical discussion between plant health authorities of both countries. 
164. In October 2001, the United States reported on  bilateral discussions on Japan's quarantine 
procedures on US apples.  Although joint scientific r esearch 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 considering wh at further steps, including dispute settlement, it 
could take on the matter.  New Zealand announced it  would also seek bilateral discussions with Japan 
on its import requirements for apples.  Japan stated th at in order to complete the technical evaluation, 
additional information had been requested from the United States. Further bilateral contacts between 
the US and Japanese experts were considered appropriate. 
165. 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 buffer zone around the or chard, and 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 under the SPS Agreement.   The United States had requested consultations 
under Articles 1 and 4 of the Dispute Settlement U nderstanding on 1 March 20 02.  New Zealand and 
the European Communities also expressed the view th at Japan's restrictions on apples were more trade 
restrictive than necessary and stated their in terest in a resolution of this issue. 
166. 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 evid ence 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 allow a resolution of this 
issue. 
167. 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 Comm unities indicated that their countries shared the US concerns and 
would participate in the dispute resolution procedure as third parties.  Japan indicated that during the 
bilateral consultations held follo wing the US request, Japan had indicated its willingness to consider 
relevant data submitted by the United States, however  nothing had been provided.  Fire blight was a 
serious plant quarantine disease which did not occu r in Japan and which could severely damage the 
production of apples, pears and other fruits.  Japan's  measures were indispensable in order to prevent 
the entry of fire blight, and were fully ju stified on the basis of scientific evidence. 
 
172. Restrictions on imports of mangoes 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: India  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 41 
 
 
  Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, pa ras. 34-35), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, 
paras. 25-26), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 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: Regulations modified to permit imports 
Status: Resolved 
 
168. 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 proce ss.  Brazil considered that Japan's measures were 
inconsistent with the provisions of the SPS Agre ement on equivalence, regi onalization and technical 
cooperation. 
169. Japan stated that Brazil had requested technical assistance in 1986 but had stopped the 
technical assistance in 1990 because it wished to  develop its own techni que 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 in formation was needed, however, before Japan could approve the 
measures and conclude the necessary technical studies. 
170. 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 importation 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 submitted technical inform ation in October 2001 and the technical studies by 
Japan were progressing well. 
171. In March 2004, Brazil stated that the Japanese 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.  India noted th at, while India was a fruit fly free area its request 
for market access for mangoes into Japan had been under review for ten years.  India had submitted 
data to Japan and hoped for a favourable response.  Japan  stated that technical evaluation 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. 
172. 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 indicated 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 dippi ng.  The new protocol was expected to be 
implemented based on the outcomes of these bilateral discussions. 
173. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 42  
 
  Brazil.  In December 2004, Japane se inspectors had gone to Brazil to examine packing houses.  On 12 
January 2005, the first shipment of Brazilian mango es had been exported to Japan, which marked the 
beginning of a regular flow of exports of mango es 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 pest risk assessment process based on technical data submitted by Brazil. 
 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY REPUBLIC OF KOREA Food safety 1. Shelf-life requirements  
Raised by: Australia, Canada, United States 
Supported by: Argentina, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 1995 (G/SPS/R/2, pa ras. 39-40), November 1995 (G/SPS/R/3, 
paras. 7-8), May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, paras. 42-44), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, 
paras. 20-21), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 8-9), October 1997 
(G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 6-7), Ju ly 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/9, G/SPS/W/27, G/SPS/W/41, G/SPS/W/43, 
G/SPS/GEN/40, G/SPS/GEN/265, WT/DS5, WT/DS20 
Solution: The United States and Korea held  formal consultations under dispute 
settlement (DS5), and notified a mutua lly agreed solution in July 1995. 
Canada initiated formal dispute set tlement (DS20), and a mutually 
satisfactory solution was notified in April 1996 
Status: Resolved 
 
174. In June 1995, the United States informed th e Committee of official consultations under 
Dispute settlement procedures with Korea regarding its government-mandated sh elf-life requirements.  
Canada had joined these consultations.  Korea indicated that although consultations had been 
productive, there was a high degree of ambiguity in th e implementation of the Agreement.  The parties 
had noted the lack of international standards in  the area, and countries maintained very diverse 
practices.  A mutually agreed solution was notified in  July 1995.  In November 1995, the United States 
expressed serious concern that Korea was not implementing the agreed settlement. 
175. Also in November 1995, Canada indicated that  it had initiated formal  consultations with 
Korea related to shelf-life determination for bottled water and the prohibition of the use of ozonation.  
Korea confirmed that bottled water was excluded fro m the settlement reached with the United States, 
but was willing to enter into consu ltations with Canada.  A mutually  satisfactory solution was notified 
in April 1996. 
176. In May 1996 Canada noted th at although a formal understanding had been reached with 
regard to some concerns regarding shelf life, probl ems with the shelf life of bottled water continued.  
Korea had not offered any time-table for moving to a manufacturer-determined shelf life on bottled water.  Korea took note of this concern.  In Ju ly 1997, Canada reported th at the matter had been 
pursued bilaterally, but no resolution had been found.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 43 
 
 
  177. In May 1996, Australia expressed serious concern with regard to Korea's shelf-life regulations 
on ultra heat treated milk in c onsumer packs (UHT milk), which remained government mandated at a 
period substantially shorter than that applied in  most countries.  Australia was unaware of any 
scientific justification for this limited shelf-life period, and requested Korea to permit a manufacturer-
determined shelf life by 1 July 1996.  Korea took note of these concerns. 
178. In March 1997, Australia reported that Ko rea had yet to implement a manufacturer-
determined shelf life for UHT milk.  Australia had provided a scientific submission to Korea in 
November 1996, which had not been accepted.  S ubsequently, Australia had provided another 
submission upon request.  Korea indicated that it w as reviewing the information provided by Australia 
and noted that its new system for shelf-life determ ination set a time-frame for the implementation of a 
manufacturer-determined shelf-life period for UHT milk. 
179. In July 1997, Australia noted that Korea had not provided any justification for its non-
acceptance of manufacturer-determined shelf life, a nd requested an explanation in accordance with 
Article 5.8.  Korea indicated that manufacturer-det ermined shelf life would be applied to UHT milk 
before the end of 1998.  In October 1997, Australia  indicated that it had not received a satisfactory 
answer from Korea.  Korea replied that it was reviewing the possibility of extending the current 
mandatory shelf-life period for UHT milk even befo re manufacturer-determined shelf life applied at 
the end of 1998. 
180. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it  considered the trade concern to be resolved 
(G/SPS/GEN/265). 
 35. Import ban on frozen poultry 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Re v.1, para. 45), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, 
paras. 67-68), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/ 11, paras. 21-23), September 1998 
(G/SPS/R/12, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/44 
Solution: Measure amended 
Status: Resolved 
 
181. In October 1997, Thailand indicated that Ko rea had banned Thai frozen poultry because of 
listeria, although Korean experts had been satisfied af ter visiting facilities of the Thai poultry industry.  
This ban had not been notified in ad vance.  Thailand was determined to  resolve this matter with Korea. 
Korea asked for detailed information in writing. 
182. In March 1998, Thailand indicated that it had s ubmitted the requested information.  It sought 
clarification whether the measure was based on an  international standard or on a risk assessment, 
particularly in light of information made av ailable by the WHO working group on food-borne 
listeriosis, which indicated that lis teriosis had a very low incidence in Asia.  Korea responded that its 
measure was not a ban, but that consignments had been rejected. 
183. In June 1998, Thailand noted that the proposed amendment to the Korean food code had been 
enacted retroactively to cover the disputed testi ng requirements and asked Korea not to enforce the 
testing requirements during the process of amendment of the food code.  Korea reported that bilateral G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 44  
 
  consultations had been held.  The food code wa s being reviewed to improve food safety and to 
harmonize Korean regulations with international st andards.  All comments received were currently 
being reviewed, although some delays had occurred.  Korea promised to inform Thailand of the final 
outcome. 
184. In September 1998, Thailand asked for confirmation that the Korean Food Code had been 
amended so that zero tolerance criteria for listeria would not apply to imported frozen chicken after 16 
June 1998.  Korea clarified that meat for fu rther processing and cooking was excluded from the 
requirement and not subject to inspection un der the zero tolerance criteria for listeria. 
 
Plant Health 
202. 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): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
185. The United States stated that since April 2004,  Korea had banned imports of citrus from 
California due to concerns of the fungi septoria c itri.  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 Stat es had proposed several 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. 
186. Korea stated that septoria citri was one of the mo st serious quarantine pests in Korea.  The US 
proposed protocol did not fully address Korea's c oncerns.  A ban was imposed on fruits originating 
from two specific areas in the United States where the fungi was repeatedly detected. 
187. In March 2005, the United States and Korea re ported that this issue had been resolved 
following technical meetings. 
 Other concerns 2. Import clearance measures and practices 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Certain Members 
Dates raised: June 1995 (G/SPS/R/2, paras. 39-40), May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, paras. 4-5), 
October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, para. 54) , March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 54), 
July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 77), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, 
paras. 42-43), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 45 
 
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/W/64, G/SPS/W/66, G/SPS/GN/6, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Consultations under Dispute Se ttlement initiated (WT/DS3, WT/DS41); 
mutually satisfactory solution found 
Status: Resolved 
 
188. In June 1995, the United States informed the Co mmittee that it had held formal consultations 
with Korea regarding its inspection and testing me thods.  Korea indicated that although consultations 
had been productive, there was a high degree of ambi guity in the implementation of the Agreement.  
The parties had noted the lack of international st andards in the area, and countries maintained very 
diverse practices.  In May 1996, the United States expressed serious concern regarding Korea's import 
clearance measures and practices, which were not based on science, did not conform to international 
practice or standards, and were deliberately empl oyed to discourage food and agricultural imports.  
The United States had submitted a formal request for consultations.  Korea replied that these issues 
had been discussed extensively in a series of bilate ral consultations with the United States and other 
countries.  Korea had taken various measures to comply with the SPS Agreement, but encountered 
problems common to developing countries: a low level of sanitary infrastructure, lack of experience 
and information, and lack of relevant internationa l standards.  However, Korea would continue to 
adapt its measures to the SPS Agreement. 
189. In October 1996, the United States reported on ongoing discussions with Korea.  The United 
States expected reforms to shorten the import clearance process in Korea without additional burdensome requirements, with a period for comments by WTO Members.  Korea answered that an 
ambitious reform programme had been launched the previous year, including the establishment of an 
advanced inspection and quarantine system by the end of 1996.  In March 1997, the United States 
noted that consultations continued.  Although Ko rea had implemented some changes, concerns 
remained.  Korea indicated that it would continue its  efforts to conform its sanitary and phytosanitary 
legislation to the SPS Agreement. 
190. In July 1997, the United States reported that af ter five rounds of consultations under the WTO 
dispute settlement procedure, some Korean import cl earance laws and regulatio ns had been reformed.  
However, since January new problems had arisen.  The United States would continue to address these 
concerns in bilateral consultations until clearance tim es in Korean ports were similar to those in similar 
ports.  Korea took note of the US comments.  In October 1997, the United States noted that although some progress had been made, there seemed to be problems with the implementation of certain 
changes Korea had agreed to make.  The representativ e of Korea indicated that in his view the new 
import clearance system was in full compliance with  the SPS Agreement, however, the US concerns 
would be conveyed to the comp etent authorities in the capital. 
191. In July 2001, the United States indicated that bilateral consu ltations initiated under the dispute 
settlement framework resulted in a mutually sa tisfactory and positive outcome (G/SPS/GEN/265).  
The United States considered th is trade concern resolved. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 46  
 
  MALAYSIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA 
Food safety 66. Notifications related to dioxin – Maintained by Malaysia and Singapore 
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 16) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MYS/6, G/SPS/N/SGP/7 
Solution: Problems with Malaysia and Si ngapore were resolved  in July 1999 
Status: Resolved 
 
192. Switzerland expressed concern that it had been affected by restrictions on imports of 
European goods in response to the dioxin crisis in  Belgium.  Some Members had not targeted their 
measures only to affected areas.  Switzerland reporte d that a solution had been  found with Malaysia, 
and that the last few problems with Singapore would be resolved soon. 
 MEXICO CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY MEXICO 
Plant Health 36. Import prohibition of milled rice 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Re v.1, para. 44), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, 
paras. 69-70), June 1998 (G/SPS/ R/11, para. 24), September 1998 
(G/SPS/R/12, paras. 17-18), November  1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 14-16), 
March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 15), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 7), 
November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para . 86), March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, 
para. 26), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, paras. 22-23), November 2000 
(G/SPS/R/20, paras. 23-25), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 46-47), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 112-113), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
para. 138), June 2002 (G /SPS/R/27, para. 131) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MEX/44, G/SPS/N/MEX/45, G/SPS/N/MEX/55, 
G/SPS/N/MEX/153, G/SPS/N/MEX/172, G/SPS/GEN/82, 
G/SPS/GEN/105, G/SPS/GEN/172, G/SPS/GEN/216 
Solution: Revised regulation published on 15 April 2002 
Status: Resolved 
 
193. In October 1997, Thailand reported that Mexico  prohibited importation of Thai milled rice 
because of the fungus tilletia barclayana (Kernel smut ), although Mexican experts visiting Thailand  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 47 
 
 
  had concluded the fungus would be  removed during milling, and a lthough the fungus existed in 
Mexico.  Mexico had informed Thailand that the prohibition would be replaced by a new regulation, 
but despite high-level consultations no progress ha d been achieved.  Mexico assured the Committee 
that the matter would be followed up.  In Ma rch 1998, Thailand indicated that it had received no 
replies to its written communication to Mexico.  Th e Mexican delegate replied that he would convey 
the information to his authorities, who were studying the matter.  Thailand expressed its 
disappointment at the lack of progress again in June 1998, and Mexico stated that the issue was still under consideration.  In September 1998, Mexico  reported on official contacts between the two 
countries.  Mexico was conducting a risk assessment,  but had not received the necessary information 
from Thailand. 
194. In November 1998, Thailand reported that it had proposed holding consultations with the 
Chairman, but that Mexico had not agreed.  He stressed that there was no data demonstrating the risk of transmission of the fungus tille tia barclayana from Thai milled rice.  Mexico had requested 
information on a different pest for its risk assessm ent, but Thailand did not see the connection between 
the two issues, as this new pest was not listed in the regulation establishing the Mexican quarantine 
measures.  Thailand was concerned that Mexico migh t request information on one pest after another.  
Mexico repeated that the requested information had not been provided.  Both countries indicated 
consultations would continue. 
195. In March 1999, Thailand indicated that a lthough it had no obligation to do so, it was 
providing the information requested by Mexico.  Mexico  noted that its measures had been notified, and 
the text of the measures provided to Thailand.  Me xico would review the latest information and act 
accordingly.  In July 1999, Thaila nd reported that it had handed over additional documents to Mexico.  
Some progress had been made at bilateral consu ltations, where it had been clarified that tilletia 
barclayana was a quarantine disease only for seed im ports, not with regard to rice imported for 
consumption.  Mexico had also found no reports of  the presence of the khapra beetle in Thailand, and 
would thus modify its regulati on which had listed Thailand as a country affected by this pest. 
196. In November 1999, Mexico informed the Comm ittee that the phytosanitary regulations were 
being revised and would be published for comments.  Mexico had provided Thailand with the text of 
the draft measures.  Thailand indicated it was looking  forward to the publication of the final measure 
and its notification to WTO.  In March 2000, Tha iland noted that Mexico had taken new measures 
replacing the ban, but these measures include d unusual and unnecessary requirements such as 
fumigation at point of entry.  Mexico invited Thailand to send official comments on the new draft 
regulation. 
197. In June 2000, Thailand reported that bilateral consultations had taken place.  Thailand had 
posed a list of questions regarding the measure no tified in G/SPS/N/MEX/153.  Mexico explained that 
the questions and comments from Thailand were being reviewed by the competent Mexican authorities.  The sub-committee considering the matter  would meet in July 2000, and responses to each 
of the comments would be published in the Official Journal before the final standard was published. 
198. In November 2000, Thailand reported that alt hough every effort had been made to find 
resolution to this problem, the issue was still unresolved .  Thailand had not been informed of the status 
of the matter since the meeting of the Mexican phyt osanitary committee in July and August 2000, and 
was interested in the expected date of amendment of the relevant Mexican standard.  Mexico had no 
further information. 
199. In March 2001, Thailand reported that during bi lateral consultations, Mexico had indicated 
that it had removed the prohibition on Thai milled rice, and that Thailand was no longer listed as a 
country under quarantine against Khapra beetle.  Thailand requested that Mexico notify this 
amendment to the SPS Committee.  Thailand was satisfi ed with the interim measure which allowed for G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 48  
 
  the importation of Thai rice upon request by importe rs.  However, Thailand was concerned that the 
final publication of the phytosanitary requirements had not yet been adopted, meaning that the lifting 
of the ban could not be implemented on a perman ent basis.  Thailand would pursue the measure 
bilaterally with Mexico.  Mexico explained that  the definitive publication of the measure in the 
Official Journal had not yet been possible due to administrative procedures requiring legislation.  
However, Mexico would issue phytosanitary certificat es until the time of publication.  Imports had to 
fulfill certain criteria, including international phytosanitary certificates, inspection at point of entry, sampling for laboratory analysis a nd fumigation with methyl bromide.  Fumigation at place of origin 
would only be accepted if the product was in plastic bags. 
200. In October 2001, Thailand recalled that in  March 2001 Mexico had announced that 
restrictions against Thai milled rice had b een lifted on condition that it underwent fumigation 
treatment.  Despite this statement, notificati on G/SPS/N/MEX/172 showed that Thailand remained on 
Mexico's list of countries affected by the Khapra b eetle and subject to quarantine requirements.  In 
subsequent bilateral consu ltations, Thailand had been informed that  it would be removed from the list.  
Mexico expressed surprise at Thailand's statement since as of March, Mexico had imported over 1,000 
tonnes of Thai rice.  The product mentioned on the notification in question was not Thai rice. 
201. In March 2002, Thailand noted that a bilatera l meeting with Mexico on the matter had been 
held earlier in the week.  Mexico reported that r estrictions on milled rice from Thailand had been lifted 
as of March 2001, however the publication of the modi fied regulation had been delayed but would take 
place within 30 days. 
202. In June 2002, Thailand informed the Committee that on 15 April 2002, Mexico had published 
the revised regulation.  Thailand appreciat ed Mexico's cooperation on this matter. 
 
164. Restrictions on the importation of dry beans 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, Nicaragua 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  28-30), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, para.71), 
June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, para. 39) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/379, G/SPS/N/MEX/68, WT/DS284 
Solution: Consultations requested under dis pute settlement produced by Nicaragua -
Mutually satisfactory solution reported by Nicaragua in March 2004, and by the United States in June 2006. 
Status: Resolved 
 
203. The United States reported that Mexico had unjustifiably implemented a temporary 
suspension on the importation of dried beans from the United States on 21 January 2003.  Canada and Nicaragua stated that they shared the concerns of  the United States.  Canada noted that no provision 
had been made in the Mexican measure for shipments en route.  Nicaragua indicated that access of its 
black beans to the Mexican market had been bl ocked for what it considered arbitrary reasons. 
204. Mexico replied that high level discussions ha d taken place between the Mexican authorities 
and the United States and Canada.  Mexico would communicate in the next few days what steps it 
would take to resolve this issue.  Mexico would re ply at a latter date to co mments raised by Nicaragua.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 49 
 
 
  205. In March 2004, Mexico informed the  Committ ee that the issue of restrictions on the 
importation of dry beans had been resolved with Ni caragua.  Nicaragua stated that on 8 March 2004, 
the Dispute Settlement Body was notified of Nicaragua 's withdrawal of consultations with Mexico on 
this issue. 
206. In June 2006, the United States informed the Comm ittee that the issue had been resolved with 
Mexico. 
 
NEW ZEALAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND Food safety 
45. Import restrictions on cheese 
Raised by: Switzerland, European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11 and Co rr.1, paras. 41-42b), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, paras. 21-23), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 9-13), 
November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/80, G/SPS/N/AUS/107, G/SPS/N/NZL/48 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
207. In June 1998, Switzerland reported that, without  advance notice, New Zealand and Australia 
had stopped imports of hard cheeses made from unpasteurized milk, on the grounds that they did not 
meet the sanitary requirements.  Australia and New Zealand responded that the relevant import 
measure required inactivation of pathogenic organisms.   This measure had been put in place before 1 
January 1995 and therefore not been  notified, but compliance had recently been reinforced.  ANZFA 
was evaluating the applications received fro m Switzerland and the European Communities. 
208. In November 1998, the European Communities requested Australia to identify the 
international standard on which its import ban on Ro quefort cheese was based, or to provide scientific 
justification and a risk assessment.  Australia re sponded that its food standards required all cheese to 
be made from pasteurized milk, or milk that had undergone an equivalent process.  Australia's risk 
assessment on Roquefort cheese had identified poten tial problems with pathogenic micro-organisms, 
in particular entero-hemorrhagic E-coli.  Furt her data from the Roquefort manufacturers had been 
received and were being evaluated.  In additi on to food safety assessments, Roquefort cheese was 
being evaluated for risks to animal health.  Draft revised import conditions w ould be notified soon, and 
comments solicited.  A final decision was likely in the first quarter of 1999 on both food safety and animal health aspects. 
209. In March 1999, Switzerland asked about the progress of ANZFA's procedures. Australia 
responded that ANZFA had conducted a risk assessment.   The documentation would be published on 
17 March 1999 for public comment, after which a final recommendation would be made.  Swiss 
officials in Canberra would be br iefed on 16 March 1999.  Regarding EC concerns, Australia reported 
that according to a risk assessment initiated by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA), 
French Roquefort did not comply with Australian requi rements.  French officials in Canberra would be G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 50  
 
  briefed on the issue.  In November 2000, Switzerland reported that a mutually satisfactory solution had 
been found. 
 
Plant Health 
101. Proposed import prohibition of commodity -country combinations of fresh cut flowers 
and foliage 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Colombia 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, par as. 68-70), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 44) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/NZL/24, G/SPS/N/NZL/142 
Solution: Proposed measures withdrawn 
Status: Resolved 
 
210. The European Communities was concerned that according to the proposed measure, plants 
not traded for two years might be subject to a prohibition, pending a new risk assessment.  This 
practice was not in accordance with international standards, and was unnecessary and unjustified.  
Colombia expressed interest in participating in  bilateral exchanges and in receiving relevant 
information.  New Zealand explained that in  1997 it had commenced a review of its import 
requirements for cut flowers as imports were st eadily growing.  New draft standards had been 
approved and notified in 1998, and were  being reviewed in light of the most up to date scientific data.  
At an initial step the review included the suspensi on of historic phytosanitary requirements for some 
countries.  New Zealand had notified its plan to fu rther consolidate the approved country-commodity 
schedules to include only those commodities that ha d actually been exported to New Zealand in the 
past two years.  New Zealand would continue to  address the EC concerns on a bilateral basis. 
211. In March 2002, New Zealand stated that th e proposed measures had been withdrawn. 
 NORWAY CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NORWAY Animal Health and Zoonoses 3. Restrictions on gelatin imports 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1996 (G/SPS/R/4, para . 47), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 
24-25), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 19-20) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Import conditions clarified 
Status: Resolved 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 51 
 
 
  212. In March 1996, Brazil informed the Committee th at Norway had halted the issuance of import 
licenses for Brazilian gelatin because of the existence of FMD in Brazil.  Consultations with Norway 
had been initiated in 1995, and Norwegian authoriti es had reportedly declared the problem was solved.  
Nevertheless, import licenses continued to be denied.  Norway stated that the ban on gelatin imports 
from Brazil would be lifted in the context of recent  changes to import regulations.  The two Members 
agreed to continue their consultations. 
213. In September 1998, Brazil reported that bilatera l contacts had not resulted in a lifting of the 
ban.  Norway explained the conditions it applied to imports of Brazilian gelatin, and stated that 
applications fulfilling these conditions would be accep ted.  In November 1998, Brazil thanked Norway 
for having clarified its import requirements.  Brazil would have no problem meeting these 
requirements and looked forward to r esuming its gelatin exports to Norway. 
 
PANAMA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA Plant Health 
24. Requirements for certification of consumer rice 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 15), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Import restrictions removed 
Status: Resolved 
 
214. In March 1997, the United States noted that Pana ma required imports of consumer rice to be 
certified free from the fungus tilletia barclayana (Kerne l smut), although this fungus already existed in 
Panama.  Furthermore, the fungus in question c ould not be transmitted through milled rice.  
Panamanian officials had allegedly suggested that  current domestic supply co nditions had influenced 
their decisions.  The representative of Panama rep lied that she would forward a report from capital to 
the US Department of Agriculture. 
215. In July 2001, the United States indicated that Panama had removed its import restrictions on 
rice in late 1997, and that the matter was resolved (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 52  
 
  PHILIPPINES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PHILIPPINES 
Food safety 150. Certification of meat and dairy products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Australia, Korea, Republic of, New Zealand, United States, European 
Communities 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,  paras. 98-100), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/PHL/44 
Solution: Implementation of MO7 deferred indefinitely 
Status: Resolved 
 
216. Canada expressed concerns about the eff ects of the memorandum order MO7 from the 
Philippines Department of Agriculture, noting that it would have serious effects upon its exports of 
meat and dairy products.  While Ca nada did not quarrel with the requi rement that imports be produced 
in plants applying HACCP procedures and that there be  a certification to this effect, it was not clear 
whether Philippine producers were subject to simila r requirements.  The requirement of a third party 
independent certification was unwarranted and not the least trade restrictive option.  Canada's governmental authority, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, was prepared to certify that exports to 
the Philippines had been produced in HACCP complia nt plants and there was no need for additional 
certification by a third party.  The European Co mmunities, Australia, Korea, New Zealand and the 
United States shared this concern.  The EC certif ication requirements already put a lot of emphasis on 
HACCP compliance.  Australia felt that the Philippi ne's proposed measures were not in accordance 
with SPS obligations. 
217. The Philippines clarified that certification of HACCP compliance by third party auditors was 
required in the light of several documented cases of  contaminated products entering the country.  The 
Philippines was concerned that not all shipme nts came from well established HACCP compliant 
plants.  The measures were not meant to replace or  duplicate the exporting country's inspection system 
but to complement it.  The Philippines believed that  appropriate and sufficient time had been provided 
to trading partners and foresaw no problem that tr ade restrictions might occur especially for countries 
claiming to be HACCP compliant.  The Philippines indicated that HACCP was a universal guideline 
approved and propagated by FAO and WHO. 
218. In April 2003, Canada reported that on 24 Februa ry 2003, the Minister of Agriculture of the 
Philippines had announced that implementation of Memorandum Order 7 requiring third party 
certification for HACCP plants had been postponed.   The European Commun ities, New Zealand and 
the United States shared Canada's appreciation of th is decision.  The Philippines confirmed that MO7 
had been deferred indefinitely. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 53 
 
 
  POLAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY POLAND 
Food safety 57. Requirements for imports of milk and milk products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/POL/14 
Solution: Poland's accession to the European Union 
Status: Resolved 
 
219. The European Communities indicated that the Po lish sanitary requirements for milk and milk 
products resulted in unjustified trade di stortions since they required the application of heat treatment to 
products which were produced with raw milk.  The European Communities felt that there were 
equivalent procedures to ensure that Poland's level of protection was met, and invited Poland to engage 
in bilateral discussions on this m easure.  Poland indicated that the EC request would be considered. 
220. In June 2004, the European Communities reported that this issue had been resolved with the 
accession of Poland into the European Union. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
68. Notifications on veterinary measures and me asures on animal products including gelatin 
Raised by: Switzerland, United States 
Supported by: Brazil, European Communities 
Dates raised: July 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 48-49), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, 
paras. 46-48), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22,  para. 127), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, 
paras. 40-42) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/POL/3, G/ SPS/N/POL/5, G/SPS/N/POL/13, G/SPS/N/POL/14 
and Add.1, G/SPS/N/POL/25, G/SPS/GEN/265, G/SPS/GEN/322 
Solution: Regulation amended and rest rictions on gelatine from bovine hides 
removed 
Status: Resolved 
 
221. In June 1998, the United States sought clarificatio n of the status of this temporary ban, its 
scientific basis, and whether future amendments were being considered.  Brazil, the European G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 54  
 
  Communities, Switzerland and the United States expressed hope that the disease status of the 
supplying country, scientific factors related to the infectivity of gelatin and gelatin-containing 
products, as identified by the OIE, and non-discrim ination between supplie rs with similar BSE 
conditions would all be taken into account in future amendments.  Poland indicated that the measure in 
question would remain in force until the end of June 1998, and would be replaced by a measure 
reflecting the present state of scientific knowledge.  Regarding different treatment of Switzerland, the 
United Kingdom and Ireland, the new regulations had not yet been adopted by the Polish Government.  
Poland committed to providing a response on the basis of written questions from Switzerland. 
222. In September 1998, Switzerland reported on info rmal consultations w ith Poland regarding 
border measures in relation to BSE which diffe rentiated only between countries with a higher 
incidence of BSE and those of low inciden ce.  This constituted a departure from OIE 
recommendations, which also took into account surve illance and prevention systems.  The European 
Communities indicated that imports from herds wi thout BSE history should be accepted even for 
products in the highest risk category.  Poland explai ned that the measure had be en taken in relation to 
the BSE situation in the concerned countries.   B ilateral consultations were  ongoing with the United 
Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland.  The BSE situa tion was under permanent surveillance and all 
results would be taken into account during th e year-end review of Poland's regulations. 
223. In July 2001, the United States indicated  that bilateral discussions on certification 
requirements for bovine gelatin continued (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
224. In June 2002, Switzerland stated that Poland continued to restrict imports of bovine semen 
and gelatin from Switzerland although the OIE had c oncluded that bovine semen and gelatine did not 
present a risk regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country (G/SPS/GEN/322).  The 
representative of the European Communities indicated  that EC member States had similar concerns 
regarding Poland's measure.  The representative of th e OIE clarified that Chapter 4 of the International 
Animal Health Code recommended no restriction on bovine semen.  No BSE risk had been identified 
from gelatin made exclusively from hides, however certain treatments were recommended with respect 
to gelatin made from bones if the exporting country were not free from BSE. 
225. Poland clarified that bovine semen had never been covered by the Polish regulation in 
question.  Its restrictions on imports of several an imal products from Switzer land had been notified in 
G/SPS/N/POL/25.  Furthermore, there had just b een further amendments to the regulation, and 
restrictions on gelatine from bovine hides had been re moved.  Poland announced its intention to notify 
this new regulation. 
 
ROMANIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA Animal Health and Zoonoses 4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 55 
 
 
  SINGAPORE 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY SINGAPORE 
Food safety 66. Notifications related to dioxin  
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 16) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MYS/6, G/SPS/N/SGP/7 
Solution: Problems with Malaysia and Si ngapore were resolved in July 1999 
Status: Resolved 
 
226. Switzerland expressed concern that it had been affected by restrictions on imports of 
European goods in response to the dioxin crisis in  Belgium.  Some Members had not targeted their 
measures only to affected areas.  Switzerland reporte d that a solution had been  found with Malaysia, 
and that the last few problems with Singapore would be resolved soon. 
 Animal Health and Zoonoses 4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
SLOVAK REPUBLIC CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SLOVAK REPUBLIC Animal Health and Zoonoses 4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
Plant Health 
41. Restrictions on imports of apples, pears and quinces 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by: Bulgaria, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 20-21), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, 
paras. 27-30), September 1998 (G/SPS /R/12 and Corr.1, paras. 31-34), 
October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 33) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 56  
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SVK/8 and Rev.1, G/SPS/N/SVK/11, G/SPS/GEN/79 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
227. In March 1998, Hungary indicated that althoug h the Slovak Republic had made changes to its 
measure on importation of apples, pears and quin ces as notified, the certification and information 
requirements were extremely burdensome.  The measur e appeared to be more restrictive than required 
to protect health, was not based on scientific principl es and constituted a disguised restriction on trade.  
The Slovak Republic answered that the measure was intended for protection against the introduction of 
fire blight (Erwinia amylovora), which did not occur in Slovakia.  The revised measure, which 
extended import possibilities, was consistent w ith the SPS Agreement, but the Slovak Republic 
remained open to bilateral discussions. 
228. In June 1998, Hungary ac knowledged improvements made by the Slovak Republic, but 
stressed that the measure was not consistent with recommendations by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO).   The licensing system, which applied to each 
consignment, remained too burdensome.  The Slova k Republic replied that it imported 35 per cent of 
its apples, pears and quinces, which showed that there were no serious market access impediments.  
Given the potential economic costs of introductio n of the disease, and since available scientific 
information was not sufficient, a precautionary appr oach was adopted in line with Article 5.7.  The 
Slovak Republic was exchanging information with countries applying similar phytosanitary measures, 
and was ready to continue discussion with its trad ing partners.  In September 1998, Hungary again 
acknowledged that the Slovak measure had been impr oved, although a partial ban still applied, for 
which no scientific justification had been given.  The Slovak Republic reiterated its earlier arguments 
that it had put in place a temporary measure accord ing to Article 5.7.  In October 2001, Hungary 
reported that a mutually acceptable solution had been found. 
 42. Import restrictions on potatoes 
Raised by: Poland, European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, Hungary 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, pa ras. 22-23), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, 
para. 21), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 65), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, 
para. 84) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SVK/9, G/SPS/N/SVK/15, G/SPS/GEN/65, G/SPS/GEN/115, 
G/SPS/GEN/159 and G/SPS/GEN/165  
Solution: Accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union 
Status: Resolved 
 
229. In March 1998, the European Communities pointed out that notification of the Slovak 
measure on potatoes as an emergency measure did not appear to be justified, and that less trade-
restrictive measures could attain the required level of protection.  The Slovak Republic responded that 
problems seemed to stem from the registration procedure, rather than from the phytosanitary 
requirements per se.  Slovak authorities were about  to remove the current strict registration 
requirements and establish a maximum residue level.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 57 
 
 
  230. In March 1999, Poland reported that following b ilateral consultations, the Slovak Republic 
had lifted its earlier import ban on Polish ware potat oes, but that it had been replaced with testing 
requirements for potato spindle tuber viroid.  Pola nd considered this requirement an unjustified 
obstacle to trade since no comment period had been  provided and since the imported potatoes were 
treated to impede germination and were thus un likely to introduce diseases to crop plants.  The 
representative of the Slovak Republic indicated he would transmit the Polish comments to his 
authorities.  In July 1999, both delegations reporte d that consultations regarding potatoes and fruit, 
including apples, pears and quinces had taken place, and had been expanded to  include Slovak exports 
of cereals, maize and malt to Poland.  In N ovember 1999, Poland informed the Committee on the 
development of the issue.  The Slovak Republic thou ght it was more appropriate to discuss this matter 
at the expert level.  The Slovak Republic stress ed that it wanted to avoid importation of potato 
bacterial diseases.  Import measures had been notif ied (G/SPS/N/SVK/15), and were based on a pest 
risk analysis. 
231. In June 2004, the European Communities reported that this issue had b een resolved by the 
accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union. 
 
SLOVENIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY SLOVENIA 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
SWITZERLAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SWITZERLAND Food safety 
54. Notifications regarding import  requirements on meat and eggs 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ch ile, Hungary, India, Israel, New Zealand 
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 39-41), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 29-30), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127), October 2004 
(G/SPS/R/35, para. 90) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHE/14 and Corr.1, G/SPS/N/CHE/15, G/SPS/N/CHE/16, 
G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Notified as TBT measure 
Status: Resolved 
 
232. In September 1998, the United States expressed concern that Swiss regulations on meat from 
animals treated with hormones, antibiotics and si milar products imported under the Swiss tariff rate G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 58  
 
  quota (TRQ) were not based on science or risk assessment.  The fact that different requirements were 
applied to meat imported outside the tariff rate quot a called into question the validity of the alleged 
public health objective behind the regulation.  The United States indicated it was preparing formal 
comments and encouraged other Members to carefu lly consider the implications of the notified 
measure.  Canada noted that the purpose of the m easure was consumer information, yet the measure 
did not make it clear if labelling was carried through to the retail level.  Switzerland noted that thirty 
days were left of the comment period, and that all comments made would be taken into account when 
drafting the final proposal. 
233. In November 1998, the United States reiterated its  concerns regarding restrictions on meat 
imports under the Swiss TRQ, and added that  the measure notified as G/SPS/N/CHE/15 would 
prohibit imports of eggs and egg products from birds raised in battery cages under the TRQ.  Such 
imports would be permitted outside the TRQ, subject to prohibitively high duties, strict labelling and 
additional certification requirements.  The proposed regulations did not indicate what public health 
objective was involved.  The United States was concerne d that the measures did not appear to be based 
on a risk assessment.  Discrimination between products imported under the TRQ and outside the TRQ 
was unjustified.  Switzerland explained that the m easures related to the implementation of the new 
Swiss Federal Law on Agriculture of 29 April 1998.  Swiss authorities were still discussing the 
implementation of the Law, and questions and comments would be taken into account. 
234. In July 2001, the United States indicated  that it considered the issue unresolved 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  Switzerland had notified amende d measures under the TBT Agreement, on which 
the United States had formally commented. 
235. In October 2004, Switzerland reported that this i ssue had been resolved.  Substantial changes  
had been made to the regulation to take into acc ount comments received during the public consultation 
process.  These changes were notified to the TB T Committee in 1999 and were  no longer considered 
SPS issues.  The United States concu rred that the issue was resolved. 
 Plant Health 28. Notification on wheat, rye and triticale 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para . 32), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 91) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHE/5 
Solution: Recognition of disease free status 
Status: Resolved 
 
236. Argentina expressed concern with regard to risi ng trade barriers on wheat grain for industrial 
and planting purposes.  Argentina was free from tilletia  indica (Karnal bunt).  Argentina requested a 
full draft of the proposed Swiss measure notif ied as G/SPS/N/CHE/5, including access to the risk 
analysis and other scientific documents which substantiated the proposal.  Switzerland assured 
Argentina that the scientific b asis for the notified measure would be provided as soon as possible. 
237. In October 2004, Switzerland stated that this issue was resolved as Argentina was free from 
triticale indica and therefore the measure did not appl y to them.  Argentina concurred that the issue 
was resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 59 
 
 
  SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
(CHINESE TAIPEI) 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 180. Heat treatment for meat and bone meal in poultry for pet food 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 17-18) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Deleted heat treatment requirement 
Status: Resolved 
 
238. The United States indicated that the heat treat ment requirements of Chinese Taipei for dried 
pet food produced in areas affected by Exotic Ne wcastle Disease exceeded the relevant OIE guidelines 
and were not supported by scientific evidence.  Chinese Taipei required that poultry ingredients 
containing bone meal or poultry meat from affected areas be processed so that the interior of the bone 
was heated to 60 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes, in contrast with OIE guidelines.  Chinese Taipei's 
heat treatment requirements also applied to  poultry originating in disease-free areas. 
239. Chinese Taipei stated that the regulation for pet food was under review  and amendments had 
been proposed. 
240. In January 2005, Chinese Taipei reported th at the Quarantine Requirements for the 
Importation of Dog and Cat Food were amended on 1 April 2004.  The United States confirmed that 
this matter was resolved.  The requirements for heat treatment fo r meat and bone meal in poultry were 
deleted. 
 
Plant Health 
181. Import restrictions on potatoes 
Raised by: New Zealand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: New regulations entered into force on 10 January 2005 
Status: Resolved 
 
241. New Zealand reported that it had been experienci ng delays with its request for market access 
for potato exports to Chinese Taipei despite fulfillin g all the requirements.  New Zealand had also 
responded to requests by Chinese Taipei for additiona l information which concerned pests not found in 
New Zealand and pests not found on the potato commod ity exported, but only on the potato plant.  In 
considering New Zealand's request, Chinese Taipei  had agreed to use ISPM 10 which provided G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 60  
 
  guidance on the Requirements for the Establishment of  Pest Free Places of Production and Pest Free 
Production Sites. 
242. Chinese Taipei recalled that New Zealand had first requested access on 20 September 1995, 
basing this request on ISPM 4 Requirements for the Es tablishment of Pest Free Areas.  In February 
2002, New Zealand withdrew its initial request but ask ed that its proposal be considered under ISPM 
10 Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Fr ee Places of Production and Pest Free Production 
Sites.  In July 2002, a new pest ri sk assessment was completed.  Afte r a visit by officials from Chinese 
Taipei, New Zealand was asked to provide an upda ted pest list which was received in April 2003. 
243. In January 2005, Chinese Taipei and New Zeal and reported that a draft of The Quarantine 
Requirements for the Importation of Table Potatoes from New Zealand was notified as 
G/SPS/N/TPKM/43, and entered in to force on 10 January 2005. 
 
TURKEY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY TURKEY 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
76. Ban on pet food imports 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/26, para . 6), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 129-
130), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 57) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/316, WT/DS256/1 
Solution: Formal consultations under di spute settlement procedure requested 
May 2002.  Ban lifted 
Status: Resolved 
 
244. The representative of Hungary stated that in March 2001, Turkey ha d banned the importation 
of pet food from all European countries as a result of the BSE epidemic.  Although Hungary was a 
BSE-free country, it was included in the ban's covera ge due to the Turkish authorities' concern about 
cross-infection.  After the Turkish authorities ha d provided an explanation in June 2001, Hungarian 
companies stopped using raw materials derived fro m ruminants in pet food mix, but the ban on 
Hungarian exports remained in place.  Hungary ask ed where the Turkish regulation was published and 
when it had been notified to the WTO.  Hungary also as requested an explanation of the underlying 
scientific justification for the ban and asked whethe r Turkish suppliers were treated identically to 
foreign suppliers.  The United States and Euro pean Communities associated  themselves with the 
comments made by Hungary and requested to be inform ed of further developments.  Turkey explained 
that the problem may have arisen as a result of some missing laboratory analysis, as no import ban was 
in place.  Once that information had been provid ed, the importation procedures would be complete. 
245. In June 2002, Hungary indicated that Turkey had not provided an official response to the 
questions submitted to it.  Hungary had request ed consultations under th e DSU on 5 May 2002.  
Although some progress had been made at the cons ultations, the problem was still pending.  Hungary 
hoped to find an amicable solution by the 5 July 2 002 DSU deadline.  Turkey indicated that since the  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 61 
 
 
  issue was now a formal dispute, confidentiality re quirements had to be respected.  Turkey would 
inform the Committee of further developments at a later stage. 
246. In June 2004, Turkey reported that the ban on imports on pet foods from Hungary had been 
lifted and the issue considered resolved. 
 Plant Health 92. Restrictions on banana imports 
Raised by: Ecuador 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  97-98), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 36-
38), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, para. 57) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/249, G/SPS/GEN/275, G/SPS/GEN/276, WT/DS237 
Solution: Panel requested July 2002, suspe nded.  Mutually agreed solution reported 
November 2002 
Status: Resolved 
 
247. In March 2001, Ecuador indicated that Turk ish authorities were issuing phytosanitary 
certificates for a specific and limited volume of ba nanas only.  Ecuador believed that the control 
certificates were not only de facto quantitative restrictions, but also imposed unnecessary and unjustified administrative burdens.  Ecuador asked Turkey for a written response to a number of 
questions submitted, and planned to pursue the matter bilaterally.  Turkey replied that due to resource 
constraints, Turkey could not verify whole shipme nts at once.  Turkey had published all relevant 
regulations, as well as testing and sampling met hods.  These were the same for both domestic 
producers and importers and in conform ity with international standards. 
248. In July 2001, Ecuador indicated that the replies received in response to its questions regarding 
the "Kontrol Belgesi" certificates did not seem to co rrespond to the information provided by exporters 
and importers.  Obtaining the certificates had taken up to three times as l ong as claimed by Turkey, 
there were inconsistencies regard ing the duration and validity of the certificates.  In the case of 
bananas, the expiration dates regularly coincided w ith the beginning of Turkey's banana harvest.  In 
addition, the certificates were granted for a maxi mum of one thousand tons, and thus acted as 
quantitative restrictions.  Turkey claimed that one  could obtain several certificates, but exporters 
indicated that one had to use one certificate before a new one was granted.  Turkey replied that the 
certificate was a reference document used in custom s proceedings and food safety analysis during the 
importation process.  The system was described in the Official Gazette, and was not used to limit 
quantities.  Issuance of the certificates took between three and seven working days if the information 
was complete, and the validation period was between four and twelve months.  Turkey was ready to 
discuss the issue bilaterally.  Chile and Colombia requ ested to be informed of future developments of 
the issue.  The European Comm unities requested to see Turkey's responses to Ecuador's questions. 
249. In June 2004, Turkey reported that the issue of  restrictions on banana  imports from Ecuador 
had been resolved. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 62  
 
  UNITED STATES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED STATES Food safety 188. Delisting of France from countries authorized  to export certain meat and meat products 
to the United States 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 148-149), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 44-45), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 88-89) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
250. The European Communities stated that on 24 Fe bruary 2004, the United States suspended 
France's eligibility to export meat and meat products  to the United States.  The hasty nature of the 
decision meant that France did not have the opportunity to respond to questions raised during an 
earlier inspection.  Furthermore, this decision was mo re trade-restrictive than required to protect the 
safety of consumers. The United Stated explained that this action was based on process control and 
sanitation deficiencies identified over a multi-period in establishments certified by France as meeting 
US sanitary requirements.  Based on information from French authorities that corrective action had 
been taken to address concerns raised in previous  inspections, US officials scheduled the audit of 
January-February 2004, and clarified in advance the risk of suspension for non-performance.  The 
second audit identified the same de ficiencies.  French authorities had agreed to submit a new 
corrective action plan to the USDA.  The trai ning of French inspection personnel in the 
implementation of pathogen reduction and hazard anal ysis and critical control point (HACCP) systems 
was key to addressing the deficienci es identified in this audit. 
251. In June 2004, the European Communities reporte d the lack of progress made on this issue.  
French veterinary services and eleven establishments  authorized to export meat products to the United 
States were audited by the USDA early in 2004.  Although six of these establis hments had not had any 
major infractions, the US suspension in February 2004 applied to all eleven establishments.  The 
French authorities had forwarded a detailed plan of ac tion to the US.  The offer by the United States to 
train French veterinary inspectors was appreciated, however, some of the restrictions were 
disproportionate and discriminatory.  The United States was requested to lift the prohibition on the six 
establishments with no infractions. 
252. The United States responded that United States a nd French inspection officials had discussed 
the audit findings and follow-up actions, and Fr ance acknowledged the deficiencies and agreed to 
submit a new action plan to the USDA.  The USDA would complete its review shortly and 
communicate findings to the French authorities.  The USDA had identified experts in the European 
Union and could provide training of French insp ection personnel in the implementation of HACCP 
system.  A technical seminar would be held in  September 2004 for senior foreign meat inspection 
officials on the verification and enforcement of  pathogen reduction HACCP requirements in meat 
export establishments.  France had indicated that it would send two senior officials to this seminar.  
The United States emphasized its commitment to work  with France to reinstate their eligibility to 
export meat and meat exports to the United States.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 63 
 
 
  253. In October 2004, the European Communities reported that the USDA had carried out 
inspections in France and concluded that the Fren ch regulatory system met US requirements and was 
eligible to export meat-based products to the Unite d States.  The United States reported that a follow-
up audit of the headquarters of the French Insp ection Service, three local offices and four 
establishments was conducted in September and Oc tober.  The audit concluded that French 
establishments met the US requirements and the su spension on French meat-based products was lifted 
on 15 October 2004. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
Plant Health 
69. Import restrictions on rhododendrons in growing medium 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para . 66), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 83), 
March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 68) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/121 
Solution: Final rule published in Decemb er 1999, importation allowed under certain 
conditions 
Status: Resolved 
 
254. In March 1999, the European Communities indicated that delays in the publication of a final 
rule on the importation of rhododendrons were resulting in de facto restrictions on EC exports.  The 
representative of the European Communities asked fo r information on the status of the pest risk 
analysis and of the final rule.  The United States replied that the final rule for the importation of 
rhododendrons in growing medium from the EC had been completed pending final review, and would 
be published within one month after the meeting.  The European Communities requested an update on 
the status of the rule in November 1999, and the United States answered that it would be published in 
the near future.  In March 2000, the United States in formed the Committee that the final rule had been 
published on 30 December 1999, allowing the importation of rhodode ndrons under conditions 
designed to prevent the introduction of pests. 
 
73. Imports of citrus fruit  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para . 89), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, para. 10), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 94-96) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
Page 64  
 
   
Solution: Favourable conclusion reported in  June 2000.  New concerns raised in 
October 2001.  Issue reported resolved in March 2004 
Status: Resolved 
 
255. In November 1999, Argentina expressed conc erns regarding the postponement of US 
measures dealing with imports of citrus fruit fro m north-western Argentina.  Negotiation of the 
measure had taken seven years and been finalized one  year earlier.  Argentina appealed to the United 
States to publish the measure before another harvest was lost for Argentine producers.  The representative of the United States answered that the draft measures had passed the technical level and 
promised to draw the attention of hi s authorities to Argentina's concerns. 
256. In June 2000, Argentina reported that after years of negotiations with the United States 
regarding citrus produced in north-west Argen tina, a favourable conclusion had been reached. 
257. In July 2001, Argentina expressed concerns rela ted to a California court decision to overturn a 
USDA/APHIS risk assessment which had allowed the import of lemons, oranges and grapefruits from 
north western Argentina starting June 2000.  In Ar gentina's opinion, the judge's reasoning went beyond 
the terms of the SPS Agreement.  As imports from other destination were not subject to zero risk, 
Argentina felt this amounted to discrimination.  In addition the judge had ruled that APHIS had not 
measured the economic impact of imports on pr oducers in the United States, an economic test 
inadmissible under the SPS Agreement.  Argentina requ ested US authorities to ensure compliance with 
the SPS Agreement by bodies other than the central g overnment, according to Article 13.  The United 
States confirmed that no problems had been reporte d during the two seasons that Argentina had had 
access to the US market for citrus.  US regulations  were subject to judicial review and had been 
challenged through a District Court in California.  Although the Federal Government had disputed the 
case, the Court had ruled in favour of the complainant in September 2001.  The United States indicated that the executive branch agencies were consulting about how to proceed and would take Argentina's 
comments into account. 
258. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issu e of US imports of citrus fruits had been 
resolved. 
 
182. Implementation of the international st andard for phytosanitary measures on wood 
packaging (ISPM 15) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Chile 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 50-51) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/705 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
259. Argentina agreed that wood packaging could sp read pests, however, the US measures could 
have a negative impact on Argentina's exports.  Th e US notification did not provide sufficient time for 
implementing the measures needed for compliance.   For instance, Argentina needed sufficient 
resources and time to establish the required treatment  centres for wood packaging materials.  Chile 
supported the statement made by Argentina.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3 
 Page 65 
 
 
  260. The United States stated that it had received 54 comments from seven other Members on its 
proposed measure and that APHIS was in the pro cess of evaluating these comments to determine how 
to take them into account.  The January implem entation date would be postponed and the measure 
would be phased in over time.  The United States encouraged other Members to adopt ISPM 15 as a 
means of controlling the spread of raw wood pests. 
261. In March 2006, Argentina reported that this trade concern had been resolved. 
 
__________