WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
9 February 2009 
 (09-0612) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
Addendum  
  
ISSUES NOT CONSIDERED IN 2008 
 
 
 This part of document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9 c ontains summary information regarding all 
issues which were raised in the SPS Committee between 1995 and 2008, and on which no further 
discussion or activities occurred during 2008.  However, issues raised as of 1995 but for which a resolution was reported prior to 2008, are not contained in this part but are contained in Part 4 of this 
document. 
 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page ii  
 
   
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page
 
ARGENTINA ...................................................................................................................... ...................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA .............................1  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...............1  
38. Temporary prohibition of fresh pork and products.................................................................1  
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries – Maintained by Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States .....................................1  
138. Pest risk assessment requirements..........................................................................................2  
236. Restrictions on beef exports under the Hilton Quota..............................................................3  
AUSTRALIA...................................................................................................................... ....................3  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA ..............................3  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...............3  
50. Quarantine requirements for chicken meat.............................................................................3  
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries – Maintained by Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, Ne w Zealand, United States [See Item 84, 
page 1] ........................................................................................................................ ............5  
85. Import restrictions on prawns and prawn pr oducts;  revised generic IRA for prawns 
and prawn products............................................................................................................. ....5 
139. Restriction on pigmeat......................................................................................................... ...9 
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................10  
74. Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit ......................................................................10  
78. Notification on methyl bromide ...........................................................................................11  
79. Import restrictions on durian ................................................................................................12  
155. Import requirements for Netherlands Truss Tomatoes.........................................................13  
217. Import restrictions on apples ................................................................................................14  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............17  
249. Reform of  Australia's IRA process......................................................................................17  
BAHRAIN........................................................................................................................ .....................18  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BAHRAIN.................................18  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................18  
165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, 
Qatar and United Arab Emirates ..........................................................................................18   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page iii 
 
 
  BARBADOS ....................................................................................................................... ..................19  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BARBADOS..............................19  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................19  
195. Restrictions on citrus ......................................................................................................... ...19 
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA................................................................................20  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY BOLIVARIAN 
REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA.......................................................................................................... .20 
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............20  
29. Measures related to avian influenza .....................................................................................20  
70. Import conditions for pork meat and products .....................................................................20  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................21  
93. Phytosanitary requirements for potatoes, garlic and onions.................................................21  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............23  
123. Restrictions on imports of potatoes, oni ons, fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and 
meat products.................................................................................................................. ......23  
BOLIVIA ........................................................................................................................ ......................25  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA ..................................25  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............25  
205. Slaughter of imported breeding cattle ..................................................................................25  
BRAZIL ......................................................................................................................... .......................26  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL ....................................26  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................26  
5. Import requirements for wine...............................................................................................26  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............27  
140. Imports of live ostriches ...................................................................................................... .27 
218. Lack of recognition of regionalization a nd disease-free status for classical swine 
fever.......................................................................................................................... ............27  
237. Lack of regionalization for Newcastle di sease and restrictions on live birds.......................28  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................29  
46. Import prohibition of coconut pa lms and related products...................................................29  
141. Pest risk assessments for imports of plant origin .................................................................29  
CANADA ......................................................................................................................... .....................30  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY CANADA ..................................30  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................30  
6. Importation of cheese .......................................................................................................... .30 
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............31  
15. Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE ....................................................................31  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page iv  
 
  84.
 Import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries – Maintained by Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, Ne w Zealand, United States [See Item 84, 
page 1] ........................................................................................................................ ..........31  
88. Import restrictions due to FMD – Mainta ined by Canada and United States.......................32  
CHILE.......................................................................................................................... .........................33  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY CHILE.......................................33  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................33  
9. Zero-tolerance for salmonella in imported pou ltry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Slovak Republic ............................................33  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............34  
260. Requirements for quarantine treatment of aircraft................................................................34  
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... ........................35  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY CHINA ......................................35  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................35  
114. Food safety regulations affecting agricu ltural products produced from modern 
biotechnology .................................................................................................................. .....35  
142. Zero toleran ce for e-coli ...................................................................................................... .36 
251. Zero tolerance for pathogens on raw meat and poultry products .........................................36  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............37  
128. Import requirements for cosmetics.......................................................................................37  
255. Application of regionalization a nd prohibition of bovine meat............................................38  
259. Avian influenza restrictions..................................................................................................3 9 
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................39  
143. Regulation on wood packaging material ..............................................................................39  
261. Varietal restrictions on US apples ........................................................................................40  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............41  
184. Lack of transparency fo r certain SPS measures ...................................................................41  
COSTA RICA..................................................................................................................... ..................41  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COSTA RICA...........................41  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................41  
230. Phytosanitary requirements on fresh oranges.......................................................................41  
CROATIA........................................................................................................................ .....................42  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CROATIA.................................42  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............42  
158. Restrictions on pork imports ................................................................................................42  
166. Import measures on live animals and meat products............................................................43   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page v 
 
 
  CUBA ........................................................................................................................... .........................44  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY CUBA ........................................44  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................44  
105. Restrictions on apples and pears...........................................................................................44  
CZECH REPUBLIC................................................................................................................. ...........44  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC ................44  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................44  
9. Zero-tolerance for salmonella in imported pou ltry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Sl ovak Republic [See Item 9, page 32].........44  
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................................. ....44  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY DOMINICAN 
REPUBLIC....................................................................................................................... ....................44  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................44  
239. Tolerance levels for soil content on potato tubers................................................................44  
EGYPT.......................................................................................................................... ........................45  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY EGYPT ......................................45  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................45  
77. Restrictions on canned tuna..................................................................................................45  
EL SALVADOR.................................................................................................................... ...............46  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR .......................46  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................46  
9. Zero-tolerance for salmonella in imported pou ltry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Sl ovak Republic [See Item 9, page 32].........46  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................4 6 
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ...................46  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................46  
40. Trade restrictions in response to cholera ..............................................................................46  
47. Measure on establishments operati ng in the animal feed sector...........................................47  
52. Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation ................................................................48  
72. Measures regarding canned tuna in oil – Maintained by Belgium .......................................48  
89. Import restrictions on soy sauce ...........................................................................................49  
94. Directive 2000/42 on pesticide residues...............................................................................50  
95. Legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ)...............................................................51  
106. Regulations on genetically modified food and feed .............................................................51  
117. Traceability and labelling of genetically m odified organisms and food and feed................54  
130. Restrictions on shellfish ...................................................................................................... .56 
131. Pesticide and antibiotic limits in honey (Directive 96/23) ...................................................56  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page vi  
 
  144.
 Restrictions on the importation of fruits and fruit juices......................................................57  
168. Maximum levels for aflatoxins in corn  and sampling contaminants in food........................58  
169. EC proposed regulation on maximum residue levels of pesticides ......................................59  
175. Notification on food and feed controls.................................................................................60  
176. Notification on maximum tolerance levels for Ocratoxin A in coffee – Maintained 
by Germany ..................................................................................................................... .....61  
191. Maximum residue levels for pesticides on food...................................................................62  
197. EC regulation on Ocrat oxin A in coffee...............................................................................63  
198. EC regulation on aflatoxins  and Ocratoxin A in foods for infants and young 
children....................................................................................................................... ..........65  
207. Directives on residual pesticide tolera nce and inspection methods for tea ..........................65  
208. Food and feed hygiene rules.................................................................................................66  
219. EurepGAP requirements for bananas ...................................................................................67  
220. Proposed regulations for piper methys ticum (kava-kava) – Maintained by 
United Kingdom ................................................................................................................. ..68 
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............69  
17. Cosmetics and  BSE ............................................................................................................. 69 
18. Certification requirements for pet food – Maintained by France .........................................69  
31. Rules on "specified risk materials" in products of animal origin .........................................70  
32. Gelatin imports ................................................................................................................ .....71  
33. Salmonella-related restriction on fishmeal imports..............................................................72  
64. Ban on antibiotics in feed ..................................................................................................... 73 
97. Restrictions on the use of fishmeal.......................................................................................73  
159. Proposal on animal by-products ...........................................................................................75  
160. Transitional BSE measures...................................................................................................78  
161. EC Directive 2001/661/EC on foot and mouth disease........................................................78  
170. Live animals and animal products........................................................................................79  
171. Animal health conditions and certification requirements for live fish .................................80  
177. Sanitary conditions for the importation of live material for apiculture ................................80  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................82  
19. Protected zones................................................................................................................ .....82  
81. Wood packing material.........................................................................................................8 2 
98. Restrictions on Egyptian potatoes ........................................................................................83  
108. Cut flowers .................................................................................................................... .......84  
109. Phytosanitary regulations (Canary Is lands) – Maintained by Spain.....................................85  
199. Deviation from international standard for wood packing material.......................................85  
209. Plant health directive ......................................................................................................... ...87  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page vii 
 
 
  Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............88  
110. Agricultural biotechnology approval process.......................................................................88  
GUATEMALA ...................................................................................................................... ...............90  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY GUATEMALA .........................90  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............90  
210. Restrictions on imports of chicken meat ..............................................................................90  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................91  
211. Restrictions on the transit of avocados.................................................................................91  
HONDURAS....................................................................................................................... ..................92  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS.............................92  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................92  
9. Zero-tolerance for salmonella in imported pou ltry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Sl ovak Republic [See Item 9, page 32].........92  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............92  
145. Import restrictions on chicken meat imports ........................................................................92  
INDIA.......................................................................................................................... ..........................93  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY INDIA ........................................93  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................93  
200. Ban on food grade wax.........................................................................................................9 3 
240. Biotech labelling and import approval process regulations..................................................94  
253. Export certification requireme nts for dairy products............................................................95  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............96  
61. Import restrictions on bovine semen ....................................................................................96  
62. Restrictions on imports of horses .........................................................................................98  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................99  
186. Phytosanitary import restrictions..........................................................................................99  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. ...........101  
192. Non-notification of various SPS measures.........................................................................101  
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... .................102  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA ...........................102  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............102  
146. Ban on hormones in animal production..............................................................................102  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........103  
111. FMD restrictions............................................................................................................... ..103  
244. Importation of live animals and meat products ..................................................................104  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page viii  
 
  Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............106
 
21. Fresh fruit and vegetables...................................................................................................10 6 
243. Lack of recognition of pest-free areas ................................................................................106  
ISRAEL......................................................................................................................... ......................108  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL...................................108  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........108  
55. TSE-related import restrictions of live cattle .....................................................................108  
232. Import restrictions on EC beef due to BSE ........................................................................108  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............109  
233. Phytosanitary import legislation.........................................................................................109  
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ......................111  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY JAPAN.....................................111  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............111  
147. Regulation on food additives..............................................................................................111  
148. Amendment of the food sanitation law...............................................................................112  
178. Revision of standards and specifica tions for food and additives........................................112  
201. Standards and specifications for food additives (boscalid) ................................................113  
212. Positive list system for pesticides, vete rinary drugs and feed additives MRLs..................114  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........116  
34. Measures regarding FMD...................................................................................................116  
99. Restrictions on importation of s ugar cane top from Indonesia...........................................117  
213. Restrictions on beef  imports..............................................................................................118  
221. Safety insurance and quality improvement standards for feed and feed additives.............119  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............120  
23. Plant quarantine regulations ...............................................................................................120  
56. Notification on amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law ....................................120  
133. Official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables.......................121  
162. Fumigation standards..........................................................................................................1 24 
223. Import requirements for Indian mangoes ...........................................................................125  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. ...........125  
13. Translation of regulations...................................................................................................12 5 
173. Notification on uses of living modified organisms ............................................................126  
224. Restrictions on EC exports of  plant and animal products...................................................126   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page ix 
 
 
  REPUBLIC OF KOREA.............................................................................................................. .....127  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAIN TAINED BY REPUBLIC OF KOREA .......127  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............127  
179. Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing.......................................................127  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........129  
65. Import restrictions on beef..................................................................................................12 9 
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries – Maintained by Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, Ne w Zealand, United States [See Item 84, 
page 1] ........................................................................................................................ ........129  
247. BSE-related measures on beef products .............................................................................130  
248. Regionalization for bovine and pig meat products.............................................................130  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............132  
174. Notification on transboundary movement of living modified organisms...........................132  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. ...........132  
13. Translation of regulations...................................................................................................13 2 
KUWAIT ......................................................................................................................... ...................133  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY KUWAIT.................................133  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............133  
165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, 
Qatar and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 18] .................................................133  
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ....................133  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY MEXICO.................................133  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........133  
67. Import restrictions on beef..................................................................................................13 3 
163. Restrictions on Austrian products.......................................................................................133  
225. Restrictions on US poultry .................................................................................................134  
NEW ZEALAND .................................................................................................................... ...........136  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND....................136  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........136  
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries – Maintained by Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, Ne w Zealand, United States [See Item 84, 
page 1] ........................................................................................................................ ........136  
OMAN........................................................................................................................... ......................136  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY OMAN .....................................136  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............136  
165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, 
Qatar and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 18] .................................................136  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page x  
 
  PANAMA......................................................................................................................... ...................136
 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY PANAMA ................................136  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............136  
83. Restrictions on milk powder imports..................................................................................136  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........137  
149. Restrictions on food products.............................................................................................137  
187. FMD restrictions............................................................................................................... ..137  
214. Inspection regime for food processing establishments.......................................................139  
PHILIPPINES.................................................................................................................... ................139  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY PHILIPPINES ........................139  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............139  
119. Notification on Chinese fruit imports.................................................................................139  
POLAND......................................................................................................................... ....................140  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY POLAND.................................140  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............140  
25. Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds (The status  of this concern is being reviewed in 
the light of Poland's membership in the Eu ropean Communities as of 1 May 2004.)........140  
QATAR .......................................................................................................................... .....................141  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY QATAR ...................................141  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............141  
165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, 
Qatar and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 18] .................................................141  
ROMANIA ........................................................................................................................ .................141  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA..............................141  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............141  
134. SPS measures on animal products......................................................................................141  
245. Restrictions on US pork and poultry imports .....................................................................141  
SLOVAK REPUBLIC ................................................................................................................ .......143  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAIN TAINED BY SLOVAK REPUBLIC ...........143  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............143  
9. Zero-tolerance for salmonella in imported pou ltry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Sl ovak Republic [See Item 9, page 32].......143  
SOUTH AFRICA................................................................................................................... ............143  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA ...................143  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........143  
43. Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from EC member States ...........................................143  
135. Restrictions on beef and pork .............................................................................................144   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page xi 
 
 
  SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND 
MATSU (CHINESE TAIPEI)......................................................................................................... ..144  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI .................144  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........144  
227. BSE-related import restricti ons on non-ruminant products................................................144  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............145  
136. Policies regarding quarantine and non-quarantine pests ....................................................145  
THAILAND....................................................................................................................... .................146  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THAILAND ............................146  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............146  
215. Public Health Regulation 11...............................................................................................146  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........147  
234. Suspension of importation of live poultry and poultry carcasses .......................................147  
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ............................................................................................................ .148 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TRINIDAD AND 
TOBAGO......................................................................................................................... ...................148  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........148  
151. Restrictions on imports of pork sau sages and other pork products ....................................148  
TURKEY ......................................................................................................................... ...................149  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY TURKEY.................................149  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........149  
48. Import ban on livestock......................................................................................................14 9 
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ........................................................................................................... 150 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED ARAB 
EMIRATES ....................................................................................................................... .................150  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............150  
165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, 
Qatar and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 18] .................................................150  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. ............151  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY UNITED STATES ..................151  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............151  
58. Notification on refrigeration and labe lling requirements for shell eggs.............................151  
152. Restrictions on melons .......................................................................................................15 1 
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........152  
7. Regionalization in relation to animal health.......................................................................152  
44. Measures related to BSE ....................................................................................................152  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page xii  
 
  84.
 Import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries – Maintained by Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, Ne w Zealand, United States [See Item 84, 
page 1] ........................................................................................................................ ........153  
88. Import restrictions due to FMD – Mainta ined by Canada and United States [See 
Item 88, page 32].............................................................................................................. ..154  
120. Restrictions on pigmeat ......................................................................................................15 4 
137. Import restrictions on meat and meat products ..................................................................155  
189. US prohibition on the use of specified  risk materials and requirements for  disabled 
cattle ......................................................................................................................... ..........156  
203. US rule on materials derived from cattle  and record-keeping requirements ......................156  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............157  
37. Actions taken by local governments...................................................................................157  
59. Interim rule affecting solid  wood packaging material........................................................158  
102. Import restrictions on potted plants from the European Communities...............................158  
121. Imports of clementines .......................................................................................................16 0 
216. Restrictions on Ya pears imports........................................................................................161  
228. Import procedures for fruits and vegetables .......................................................................162  
URUGUAY ........................................................................................................................ .................163  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY URUGUAY .............................163  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........163  
154. Risk assessment on BSE.....................................................................................................163  
CERTAIN ME MBERS ................................................................................................................ .....164  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAIN TAINED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS..........164  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............164  
63. Information on dioxin.........................................................................................................1 64 
250. Trade restrictions related to national systems for determining maximum residue 
levels (MRLs) for pesticides ..............................................................................................165  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...........165  
103. FMD-related import restrictions.........................................................................................165  
124. Notifications related to  Avian Influenza ............................................................................167  
190. Regionalization and recognition of animal disease-free status...........................................168  
235. Import restrictions on EC exports of liv e birds, meat, meat products and other 
derivates due to avian influenza .........................................................................................169  
258. Import restrictions on beef and beef pr oducts due to Blue  Tongue disease .......................170  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............171  
26. Phytosanitary issues in general...........................................................................................171  
183. Implementation of ISPM 15 ...............................................................................................171  
204. Notification by Members of implementation of ISPM 15..................................................172   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 1 
 
 
  ARGENTINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA Animal Health 38. Temporary prohibition of fresh pork and products  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 34-35) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/9 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
1. The European Communities observed that the Argentine measure applied to the entire 
European Communities.  The European Commun ities had taken measures to regionalize the EC 
member States with restrictions with regard to Cl assic Swine Fever.  Argentina replied that it believed 
in the principle of regionalization, but had found th at there was no basis to assume compliance within 
the European Communities.  Argentina had requ ested information from a number of EC member 
States, but only four countries had responded.  Classic Swine Fever was a highly infective OIE List A disease which had not occurred in Argentina si nce 1985.  Argentina would assess information 
received so as to adjust its measure as appropriate. 
 
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free co untries – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States 
Raised by: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Repub lic, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia 
Supported by: United States, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  18-25), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 48) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/247, G/SPS/N/ARG/59, G/SPS/N/AUS/125, 
G/SPS/N/CAN/94, G/SPS/N/KOR/83, G/SPS/N/NZL/77, G/SPS/N/USA/379 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2. On behalf of a group of countries (see table a bove), Romania drew attention to a number of 
emergency notifications banning imports of certain  animal products from countries that were BSE-
free.  These measures violated the SPS Agreemen t since they were not based on a proper risk 
assessment.  The affected countries were willing to provide the necessary documentation of their 
BSE-free status.  The European Communities added th at testing or suspension of imports of milk, 
dairy products, collagen and gelatine for BSE was not in conformity with OIE guidelines, and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 2  
 
  requested Members to adapt their requirements to  the international standard.  The United States 
affirmed that BSE-related measures must be based on science and international standards.  The United 
States, although BSE-free, had also been affected by  import restrictions, some of them imposed by 
countries sponsoring the statement presented by Ro mania.  The United States had provided evidence 
on its freedom from BSE, its surveillance system a nd control measures to interested trade partners, 
and required similar data from c ountries that may pose a BSE risk.  The United States looked forward 
to receiving the necessary informa tion to assess the risks involved. 
3. New Zealand and Australia were concerned over the increase in known incidence of the 
disease in Europe as a result of intensified testing, and had issued emergency food standards to protect 
public health.  They were developing permanent measures, which would be notified to allow for 
comments from interested Members.  Canada had not recognized any of the countries of the joint 
declaration as BSE-free, and would evaluate individual countries based on a risk assessment as soon as the necessary information was received.  Kor ea indicated that a temporary measure had been 
introduced because of the increased  prevalence of BSE in Europe.  Korea would seek the additional 
information necessary for a more objective assessment of  the risks involved.  Argentina indicated that 
its emergency measure was based on the scientific info rmation available at the time, and stressed that 
any new information received would be considered.  Bu lgaria pointed out that according to Article 5.7 
Members were obliged to request additional information when temporary measures were 
implemented.  Brazil reaffirmed Members' right to  go beyond international guidelines based on a risk 
assessment, but stressed that this should only ta ke place once the necessary information had been 
provided. 
4. In July 2001, Bulgaria reitera ted its concern regarding import restrictions affecting BSE-free 
countries. 
 
138. Pest risk assessment requirements 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, New Zealand, European Communities 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 80-82) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/67 and G/SPS/N/ARG/68 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
5. The United States sought clarification on the criteria Argentina would use in determining 
whether or not a product tracing system thr ough the production and marketing chain met the 
requirements of this measure.  The measure al so referred to mutual agreements under which 
Argentina authorized imports of animals and animal products and the United States requested 
information about existing agreements that Argentin a might have concluded, as well as the criteria 
and procedures for future such agreements.  Furt hermore, the United States sought information on the 
role of equivalence under this measure, for exam ple, would Argentina recognize the overall inspection 
systems of exporting countries, or only verify compliance with Argentine requirements? 
6. Canada stated that certain elements of Argentina's measure were unnecessarily trade 
restrictive, such as the requirement for an a udited traceability system throughout the entire product 
and marketing chain for a wide range of products , live animals, reproductive material, soil dressing  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 3 
 
 
  etc.  Canada was concerned that all foreign estab lishments would be subject to prior inspection and 
authorization that was only valid for two years.  This requirement provided no flexibility for cases 
where no risk problems were present, and could result  in high costs to exporters.  The representatives 
of New Zealand and of the European Communities suppor ted the concerns raised by the United States 
and Canada and expressed a systemic interest in the issue. 
7. Argentina requested the United States to provid e its questions in writing.  The notification 
was open for comments and the period for comments had been extended due to requests from trading partners.  Argentina noted that other countries, including the European Communities, approved plants for export to their markets only after visiting those plants. 
 236. Restrictions on beef exports under the Hilton Quota 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, para. 34) 
Relevant document(s): Raised Orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
8. In March 2006, the European Communities reported that Argentina had placed restrictions on 
its own beef exports, reducing in pa rticular the quantity of beef it exported under the so-called Hilton 
Quota.  The European Communities understood that th is measure was taken due to concerns about the 
quantities and prices of beef available on the Argen tine domestic market.  However, according to the 
European Communities, this trade disruption could lead to a weaken ing of the SPS controls necessary 
to ensure that beef exports met the SPS requireme nts of the European Communities.  The European 
Communities sought assurances that its sanitary requirements could be met, particularly in terms of traceability, if export quantities were substantially redu ced.  Argentina indicated that it had taken note 
of the concern of the European Communities. 
 
AUSTRALIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA Animal Health 50. Quarantine requirements for chicken meat 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,  paras. 42-45), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
para. 37), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27,  paras. 135-137), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 190-192), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 60-62), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 54-56) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 4  
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/72, G/SPS/GEN/90, G/SPS/GEN/96, see also G/SPS/R/13, 
G/SPS/GEN/137 and GSPS/W/107/Rev.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
9. In September 1998, Thailand stated that Aust ralia's requirement for the importation of 
chicken meat was in excess of what was needed to  protect health, and was not viable for commercial 
manufacturing.  The European Communities added that Australia's recommended temperature and time requirements created an extreme and unnecessary barrier to trade, and committed to providing a 
list of relevant questions to Australia.  Australia  replied that its import requirements were based on 
scientific principles and data.  AQIS had based the final heating requirements on research on the 
inactivation of infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) strain CS88, a highly virulent strain exotic to 
Australia.  Extensive consultations had been held with Thai and ot her quarantine authorities to discuss 
the issue, and Australia was prepared to provide any further information requested.  Australia was 
considering whether additional scientific research c ould be usefully conducted to enhance scientific 
understanding and methods of inactiva tion of various poultry pathogens. 
10. In October 2001, Thailand reported that the Department of Livestock Development was 
finalizing its risk analysis on IBVD.  A public h earing would be held before the analysis was 
presented to Australia.  In May 2001, the OIE ha d agreed to conduct research on appropriate heat 
treatment to inactivate the IBD virus in poultry. 
11. In June 2002, Thailand informed  the Committee that its risk assessment on IBD virus in Thai 
cooked chicken meat to Australia showed that th e risk of introducing IBDV to backyard flocks 
through cooked chicken meat was negligible.  This  report had been submitted to Australia in May 
2002.  Thailand hoped that within its new food safety mandate, the OIE would undertake work on 
IBD.  Australia indicated that conditions for importa tion of cooked chicken had come into effect in 
August 1998, setting certain time and temperature cooking parameters.  Th ailand had applied for 
access for product from a certain facility, and had r ecently provided information.  Australia would 
provide a response once the Thai document had been considered by an expert review group.  The 
representative of the OIE reiterated his request that Members submit information on IBD to be able to 
make progress with the work undertaken by the OIE. 
12. In November 2002, Thailand indicated that it was still waiting for a response from Australia 
on the basis of the risk assessment results.  Australia  noted that at its recent meeting the Australian 
risk analysis panel had examined the Thai documen t in detail.  The panel had prepared technical 
comments and questions about aspects of the Thai ri sk assessment which would shortly be sent to the 
relevant Thai authorities.  The representative of the OIE took note of the risk analysis document, and 
indicated that as soon as the OIE received more info rmation and data from Members it would be in a 
position to review the OIE chapter through its expert working group. 
13. In April 2003, Thailand stated that Australia 's import risk analysis process was very 
complicated, unduly long and conducted without a specific timeframe.  Australia responded that 
current arrangements were the product of a sci ence-based risk assessment which had not been 
formally challenged.  Biosecurity Australia was st udying Thailand's risk analysis on cooked chicken 
meat, received in May 2002, along with additional in formation provided in Jan uary 2003.  Australia 
aimed to complete the current risk analysis on chicken as soon as possible.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 5 
 
 
  14. In June 2003, Thailand reported that no progr ess had been made since it provided scientific 
information to Australia in May 2002.  Australia noted that cooked chicken meat from Thailand was 
allowed into Australia if requirements were fulf illed, in accordance with scientific findings.  The 
representative of the OIE indicated that they ha d considered the issue in January 2002 and had 
requested more and new scientific information, however, no new information had been forthcoming. 
 
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free co untries – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, page 1] 
 
85. Import restrictions on prawns and praw n products;  revised generic IRA for prawns 
and prawn products 
Raised by: China, Thailand 
Supported by: Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Malays ia, Philippines, Viet Nam, European 
Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, pa ras. 84-85), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
paras. 109-111), March 2002 (G/ SPS/R/26, para. 137), June 2002 
(G/SPS/R/27, paras. 138-139), Nove mber 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 193-
194), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 58-59), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 52-53), February 2007 (G/ SPS/R/44, paras. 56-60), June 2007 
(G/SPS/R/45, paras. 33-37), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 24-26) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/124, G/SPS/N/AUS/126, G/SPS/N/AUS/204 and Add.1, 
G/SPS/GEN/791 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
15. In March 2001, Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, drew attention to Australia's notifications 
regarding its risk analysis and interim measur e on prawn and prawn produc ts, which required risk 
management measures for White Spot Syndrome and Yellow Head Virus.  Prior to the deadline for 
comments, Australia had imposed an interim me asure on imports of uncooked prawn and prawn 
products from ASEAN countries, which was based on th e fact that the imported prawn might illegally 
be used as fishing bait.  ASEAN objected to the in clusion of illegal domestic practices as a major 
element in risk analysis.  Thailand urged Australia  to lift this interim measure, which was more 
restrictive than necessary and inconsistent with Article  5.  Australia explained that the measures were 
the result of an outbreak of exotic White Spot Virus disease.  Investigations had revealed that far more 
imported prawns were being used for bait than had been previously thought, and a 15 g cut-off point 
was introduced.  The additional measures applied onl y to whole green and unpeeled headless green 
prawns from areas not free of White Spot Disease.  The risk analysis was progressing and comments 
would be taken into account. 
16. In October 2001, Thailand again expressed serious  concern about the inclusion of Australia's 
domestic enforcement practices as a major element in Australia's risk analysis.  Thailand urged 
Australia to lift the interim measure s taken on the basis of this risk analysis, as ASEAN believed the 
measures were not based on scientific evidence and were more trade restrictive than necessary.  
Australia believed its measures to be scientifically valid.  The risk analysis was continuing and would G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 6  
 
  result in final measures.  An application for equivalence for highly processed prawn products was 
being examined and, if approved, would result in less trade restrictive measures. 
17. In March 2002, Thailand sought info rmation regarding the status of Australia's risk analysis, 
noting that the original date for conclusion of th e risk assessment had been  June 2001.  Australia 
replied that work on the risk analysis was continui ng, and all stakeholders would be informed of the 
current status by letter.  In response to request s from importers, Biosecurity Australia was conducting 
an equivalence assessment to determine if there we re less trade restrictive alternative measures which 
could be applied to highly processed prawn products. 
18. In June 2002, Thailand requested information on the period of application of the interim 
measure related to White Spot syndrome and its sci entific basis.  Malaysia and the Philippines 
expressed interest in this issue.  Australia rep lied that a report had been published on progress made, 
including a summary of a meeting with stakeholders .  The next meeting of the risk analysis panel 
considering the issue was scheduled for late July 200 2, after which a draft risk analysis report would 
be issued.  The scientific concerns on White Spot  syndrome which had led to the interim measure 
remained.  Australia had completed an equivale nce assessment, and on 25  June 2002 implemented 
changes in the requirements for highly processed prawn products. 
19. In November 2002, Thailand expressed concerns over the continuation of the interim measure 
imposed by Australia and urged Australia to comple te the risk analysis and abolish the measure as 
soon as possible.  The Philippines, speaking on behalf of ASEAN, supported the concerns expressed by Thailand and noted their interest in monitoring the issue.  Australia reported that the next step of 
the Australian IRA would be the release of a revised draft import risk analysis report.  In the 
meantime, the interim me asures from June 2002, including the am ended conditions, would continue.  
The interim measure was science-ba sed, temporary and applied only to a small proportion of prawn 
exports to Australia from Thailand and other countries.   Experts from the aquatic animal biosecurity 
team had recently visited Thailand to work out a cooperative technical assistance programme 
exploiting the feasibility of alternate measures, in cluding area disease-freedom, which might enhance 
prospects for trade in the prawn products of concern. 
20. In April 2003, Thailand observed that inte rim measures against the import of uncooked 
prawns and prawn products from ASEAN countries had been in place for over two years and there 
was no legitimate reason for the continuation of th ese emergency measures.  Australia stressed that 
the measures were limited to high risk products – uncooked prawns – that accounted for only five per 
cent of the prawn products exported to Australia from Thailand.  Tests had indicated the positive 
presence of White Spot Virus in Thai uncooked pr awn products shipped to Australia.  The disease 
was exotic to Australia.  Biosecurity Australia had commissioned a study on bait use which provided 
clear support for the measures taken.  Australia  was committed to finalizing the IRA as soon as 
possible and was also working on technical assistance  projects for alternative biosecurity measures for 
prawns, including aquatic disease zoning methodologies. 
21. In June 2003, Thailand reported that the interim measure was still in place and it appeared 
unlikely that the import risk analysis would be co ncluded within a short period of time.  Australia 
reported that it was making good progress in its import  risk analysis and a revised draft report was 
underway.  The  analysis was very complex and ch aracterized by a lack of information as Thailand 
had not provided new information on White Spot Syndrome Virus. 
22. In February 2007, Thailand again expressed serious  concerns about the revised draft generic 
import analysis report on prawns and prawn products as notified by Australia.  The proposed changes 
would have serious implications for the export of these products.  Thailand had submitted its 
comments in response to the Australian notification a nd was in particular concerned that there was no 
scientific justification for the proposed quarantin e measures.  The analytical methods employed  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 7 
 
 
  suffered from a lack of empirical data, and the co nclusions were not based on scientific data but 
tailored to fit the views of policymakers.  Tha iland considered that these measures were unnecessary 
and would create trade obstacles for its exports. 
23. Thailand recalled that a first draft IRA had b een notified by Australia in November 2000 
(G/SPS/N/AUS/124).  Shortly after, however, Austra lia had imposed interim measures in response to 
an outbreak of exotic White Spot Syndrome Viru s and Yellow Head Virus.  The interim measures 
notified in February 2001 imposed restrictions on foreign exporters because of problem related to 
enforcement of Australia's domestic legislation.  Thailand was concerned that the most recent draft 
report would result in another prolongation of unnecessarily stringent interim measures, without 
sufficient scientific evidence.  Th is more than 6-year delay in completing the IRA was an undue 
delay.  If the measure were indeed a provisional measure, it should have been reviewed within a 
reasonable time, and the nature of the emergenc y requiring the imposition of urgent measures should 
have been described.  Thailand re quested that the interim measure be revoked, and that a new draft 
IRA be concluded within a reasona ble period of time, fully taking into account Thailand's comments 
and suggested alternative measures to mitigate the risks. 
24. China shared the concerns expressed by Thailand and considered that the proposed measures 
were more strict than necessary.  For example, the measure permitted impor ts only from regions free 
from certain diseases, but those same prawn diseases ex isted also in Australia.  Australia had imported 
prawns from Asia for ten years with no evidence that the disease had been spread through trade.  This 
could not be justified as an emerge ncy situation.  Furthermore, there was no justification for requiring 
the removal of shells, as there was no scientific evid ence that they carried diseas es.  This was an extra 
burden on exporters and not consiste nt with the practice of selling the product domestically with 
shells.  The proposed measure would require the t esting of all imports for three diseases, although 
they posed no risk to human health and there was little risk of the prawns being thrown into 
Australian waters.  Finally, China considered the requi rement that imported prawns must be heated to 
85 degrees would reduce marketability and that a lternatives should be provided.  The proposed 
measures did not have a scientific justificati on and would cause unnecessary obstacles to trade. 
25. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka indicated that they shared the concerns of 
Thailand and China. 
26. Australia responded that the revised draft IRA ha d been issued in November 2006, with a 90-
day comment period (closing in February 2007) wh ich had allowed all stak eholders an extended 
opportunity to provide their views.  The IRA team was now considering the comments received.  The 
draft IRA reflected a comprehensive review of the current science, and had concluded that there was a 
need to strengthen import measures through stricter  controls, but a final decision about the necessary 
measures had not yet been made.  Australia firmly rejected any suggestion that the revised draft IRA 
had relied on subjective assessments or that its findings  had been pre-determined.  After the IRA team 
had considered all stakeholders comments, the revi sed draft IRA would be considered by an eminent 
scientists group, and the IRA team would issue the final IRA report. 
27. In June 2007, Thailand expressed serious concer ns about Australia's revised IRA process, 
which was long and unpredictable.  Almost a decade had passed since the first import risk analysis 
had been undertaken by Australia on prawns.  The import risk analysis  continued, with no conclusion 
in sight.  In the meantime, Australia had indicated that it would apply stricter measures on imports.  This raised concerns that the sci entific information submitted to Au stralia was not be ing taken into 
account.  Australia was requested to  keep the Committee informed of  its process, and the expected 
timeline, as well as to report on how the informa tion submitted by Thailand and other trading partners 
was taken into account. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 8  
 
  28. China recalled the concerns they had raised at  the previous meeting and maintained that 
Australia's requirements were too stringent, unn ecessary, and without scientific. basis.  China had 
submitted comments, but received no response;  it would appreciate information on how its comments 
had been taken into account by Australia. 
29. Viet Nam stressed the importance of the praw n industry to his country and the serious 
consequences of the measures imposed by Australia.  To date, there were no reports of any disease 
outbreaks related to Vietnamese prawn exports.  His authorities had carefully studied Australia's draft 
risk analysis.  Of the five diseases identified to be  of concern in the IRA, three were not known to 
occur in Viet Nam.  The other two diseases were wi despread in South East Asia, yet had never been 
introduced into Australia despite years of prawn im ports without the current quarantine restrictions.  
The risk management measures proposed in the draf t IRA lacked scientific justification and would 
present a serious barrier to trade.  The details of the statement by Viet Nam are in document 
G/SPS/GEN/791. 
30. The Philippines and Indonesia indicated that they shared the concerns of Thailand and China, 
and urged the Australian authorities to consider the comments submitted in a balanced and speedy 
manner, and provide responses to trading partners. 
31. Australia drew attention to the public c onsultation period which had closed on 
21 February 2007.  Australia had reviewed the large number of submissions received.  All 
submissions were available from Biosecurity Aust ralia's website.  Australia had provided the 
opportunity for all stakeholders to put forward ne w scientific information that may not have been 
considered before the implementation of the revi sed interim measures.  Further consideration was 
required before the Director of Quarantine determ ined whether the interim measures needed to be 
strengthened to achieve Australia's  appropriate level of protection (ALOP).  The IRA would then be 
finalized using the established process, including re view by the Eminent Scientists' Group, and a 
limited possibility for appeal of their decision.  Fu rther information on this matter would be available 
within the next few weeks. 
32. In October 2007, Thailand informed the Comm ittee of the current situation regarding 
Australia's interim measures on the importation of pr awn and prawn products that came into force on 
30 September 2007.  Thailand and Australia had be en undertaking technical discussions within the 
ASEAN SPS expert group and through  bilateral trade negotiations.  Some progress had been made on 
important issues but there were further issues rema ining to be discussed.  Thailand hoped to find a 
mutually acceptable solution on the prawn issue in the near future. 
33. China noted that it shared the concerns express ed by Thailand regarding the restrictions on 
these products.  China requested to be kept in formed of the progress these two countries made 
bilaterally. 
34. Australia responded that Australia's revised interim quarantine measures for prawns and 
prawn products had become effective on 1 October 2007 and it had been notified as an addendum to 
the notification on the release of the revised  draft Import Risk Analysis (IRA) report in 
November 2006 (G/SPS/N/AUS/204/Add.1).  In additi on, Australia's trading partners as well as 
existing import permit holders were c ontacted in advance to inform them of the implementation of the 
measures.  The revised interim measures followed a ve ry detailed scientific risk analysis conducted by 
Biosecurity Australia and were deemed necessary to ach ieve an appropriate leve l of protection.  More 
than 50 submissions were carefully considered and a number of technical issues had required 
discussion with some of the stakeholders.  On 20 September 2007, Australia  had accepted Thailand's 
proposal on alternative cooking parameters for praw ns.  Australia was willing to consider similar 
proposals from other exporting countries as well as to discuss equivalent measures such as zoning and 
compartmentalization.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 9 
 
 
   
139. Restriction on pigmeat   
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Canada, United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 75-76), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 67-69), June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 56-58) 
Relevant document(s): WT/DS287/1, G/SPS/GEN/384 and Add.1, WT/DS287/8 
Solution: Dispute settlement.  Panel estab lished 7 November 2003, never composed. 
Mutually agreed solution to the dispute reported on 9 March 2007 
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
35. In November 2002, the European Communities noted that Australia banned imports of 
pigmeat from the European Communities, except Danish  pigmeat subject to a specific heat treatment.  
Australia had begun a risk assessment for pigmeat imports in May 1998, and although the results had 
been scheduled for February 2000 they had not been  presented and no alternative date had been set.  
Four and a half years was too long a delay to wa it for a risk assessment to be undertaken.  The 
European Communities had formally proposed equi valent measures, but Australia had not accepted 
these.  The European Communities requested Australia to take a decision as quickly as possible. 
36. Australia indicated that a generic import risk an alysis (IRA) of the quarantine risks and risk 
management options associated with disease agents that may be introduced into Australia with 
pigmeat imported from a number of countries, incl uding EC member States was being conducted.  A 
technical issues paper issued early in 2001 identified a range of quarantine risks including foot-and-
mouth disease, African swine fever, classical swine fever, as well as various other pig diseases.  The pigmeat IRA was necessarily comprehensive and co mplex;  Australia's pig industry had a very 
favourable health status.  In the case of EC exports, th e risk analysis had to deal with three OIE List A 
diseases, as well as a number of other serious diseases present in EC member States but absent in 
Australia.  For some serious diseases little scientific information was available and Australia had to 
commission significant research to provide independent scientific information on a range of issues including the transmissibility of Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome (PRRS).  The results of some mayor research was expected to be available at the end of the year.  Technical input 
from the European Communities on PRRS and othe r diseases being considered in the import risk 
analysis would be welcomed. 
37. In April 2003, the European Communities noted that it had taken 17 years to obtain some 
access for processed meat from Denmark into Australia .  Furthermore, there was still no date given 
for the publication of the general risk assessment undertaken by Australia in 1998.  The European 
Communities questioned why there was still a debate  on the methodology to be used for conducting 
the risk assessment four-and-a half years after the risk assessment had begun.  The time necessary for 
completion of the IRA was excessive and the require ments for Danish imports  were disproportionate 
to the risk.  The European Communities called on Au stralia to publish the IRA without further delay 
and to give positive consideration to equivalent me asures.  Canada also expressed frustration with the 
delays in Australia's IRA procedures. 
38. Australia observed that Aujetsky's disease w as eradicated in Denmark only in 1992 and 
following that PRRS emerged.  This had to be cons idered in the import risk  analysis commenced in 
1994.  The import of pigmeat from Denmark, subject to certain requirements, was approved in 1997.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 10  
 
  A generic import risk analysis on pigmeat was assessing import requests from a wide range of 
countries.  Various updates had been provided – including a recent update to the European 
Commission.  Comments on the methodology paper we re welcomed and a draft of the risk assessment 
would be available as soon as possible. The process  was transparent and science-based.  Independent 
research on PRRS had demonstrated oral transmission of the virus via pigmeat.  Given the lack of 
scientific information on its transmission via meat , Australia was seeking the information needed for 
an informed quarantine policy decision. 
39. In June 2005, the European Communities inform ed the Committee that a joint expert working 
group had been established to look at ways of rest oring full trade while protecting Australia from the 
introduction of Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS).  A recent court case in 
Australia had ruled that the risk measures for PM WS protection laid down in the Australian risk 
assessment were not scientifically based and that no import permits relying on these measures would be issued.  Consequently, the European Comm unities and other WTO Members where PMWS was 
present were unable to expand the ra nge of products authorized for export to Australia.  There was 
also a risk that existing licenses, valid only for two years, would not be renewed in July 2006. 
40. Canada and the United States expressed apprecia tion for the Australian Government's appeal 
of the court decision and the efforts to minimize its trade impact.  Canada  hoped that the Australian 
Government would continue to honour the existi ng import permits and woul d maintain a science-
based approach to imports. 
41. Australia confirmed that the Australian Govern ment's policy determination for the import of 
pig meat, completed in May 2004, had been the subj ect of a legal challenge in the Federal Court of 
Australia, which focused on the conditions for the import of pig meat from countries where PMWS 
was present.  While one import permit had been revoked, the remaining 83 had been maintained.  
Australia was unable to issue any new permits.  The Australian Government had appealed this 
judgement and was seeking an expedited hearing. 
 Plant Health 74. Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by: Brazil, India, Republic of Ko rea, Malaysia, Thailand, United States, 
European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 67), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, paras. 15-20)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/189, G/SPS/GEN/194, WT/DS270/1, G/SPS/GEN/345, 
WT/DS270/5/Rev.1, WT/DS271/1, G/SPS/GEN/346 
Solution: Dispute settlement.  Consultati ons requested.  Panel (DS270) established 
29 August 2003.  Composition pending 
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
42. In March 2000, the Philippines reported that its exports, including mangoes, bananas and 
pineapples, faced phytosanitary restrictions in Aust ralia.  Australia explained that in response to a 
request for access, Australia conducted an open, transp arent and consultative process of scientific risk  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 11 
 
 
  assessment and risk management to  avoid the introduction of diseases.  Both countries indicated that 
they were conducting bilateral consultations on the matter. 
43. In June 2000, the Philippines pointed out th at major ASEAN exports to Australia faced 
stringent SPS measures that were not based on a risk assessment.  Thes e measures were more 
restrictive than necessary, and should be reviewed within a reasonable period of time.  Malaysia 
suggested Australia carry out ASEAN-wide risk assessments.  Australia offered detailed comments on 
each of the points raised by the Philippines and noted  that a formal response would be provided in due 
course.  In response to Malaysia, Australia explained that pest risk analysis was specific to the trading 
partners involved and varied accordi ng to the exporter's pest status. 
44. The United States urged Australia to expedite its decisions regarding market access for 
Florida citrus and California table grapes.  Australia  replied that an import risk analysis had been 
completed for table grapes, several appeals had been addressed, and the relevant information was 
about to be released.  In response to Brazil's co mments regarding its market access applications for 
mango and papaya, Australia confirmed that these we re on the list of matters to be considered by 
Australian risk analysts.  With reference to India's concern about market access for mangoes, 
Australia reported that Indian authorities had prov ided helpful information regarding the efficacy of 
treatment for pests in mangoes, and that Australia  was currently evaluating that information.  
Regarding EC concerns, Australia confirmed that an import risk analysis was being conducted on 
bulbs.  Australia noted that it was necessary to set priorities for risk assessment given scarce financial and human resources. 
 78. Notification on methyl bromide 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 95-96) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/118 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
45. The European Communities was concerned w ith Australia's proposed introduction of 
minimum standards for fumigation with methyl br omide, which required a minimum temperature of 
10 degrees for fumigation.  This new measure c ould significantly constrain EC exports.  The 
European Communities requested additional informa tion on Australia's risk assessment and any other 
relevant evidence.  Australia responded that th e proposed standard was the result of quarantine 
breaches involving ineffective fumigation treatment  of various imported goods.  To improve the 
efficacy of fumigation prior to export, Australia  developed a standard reflecting best practice 
guidelines in the use of methyl bromide.  Austra lia was still considering the comments it had received 
on its notification of this proposed measure, a nd implementation of the new measure would be 
delayed until early 2001.  With regard to the mini mum temperature requirement, this was based on 
expert advice and reflected the minimum temperatur e requirement established by the European Plant 
Protection Organization. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 12  
 
  79. Import restrictions on durian 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by: India, Malaysia, Philippines, European Communities 
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 11-14), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
paras. 107-108), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/ 27, paras. 133-134), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 187-189), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 48-50), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 50-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/217, G/SPS/GEN/218, G/SPS/N/AUS/83 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
46. In November 2000, Thailand reported that it had sought access to the Australian market for 
durian since 1991, but Australia had notified its draft import risk analysis only in February 1999.  In 
August 2000, Australia informed Thailand that dur ian fruit imports would be permitted only under 
unduly restrictive conditions, including excessively trade restrictive sampling requirements.  
Furthermore, the seasonal limitation on shipments,  as well as the requirement that fruit come only 
from the eastern region of Thailand, did not appear to be justified. 
47. Australia noted that it had been difficult to obtain accurate information on the relevant 
anthropod pests and diseases present in Thailand, although the numerous bilateral contacts on this 
matter had resulted in an expansion of the scientific information available.  Australia noted that the 
draft conditions established for import of fresh du rian fruit had been discussed with the Thai 
government.  The Australian delegate explaine d the justification for the requirements and 
acknowledged that the conditions were very strict, bu t justified based on the pest and disease situation 
of Thailand.  Nonetheless, these conditions woul d be reviewed after one year of trade. 
48. In October 2001, Thailand indicated that desp ite numerous bilateral meetings, no agreement 
had been reached.  Thailand requested that Australia  seek to adjust its import restrictions to make 
them more commercially viable.  Australia replied that a risk analysis fo r durian had first been 
finalized in 2000.  The risk assessment indicated that other non-destructive methods of sampling 
could be substituted if efficacy data  could be presented to show they provided an equivalent level of 
protection.  However, no information had been received from Thailand that X-ray technology or 
irradiation could be equally effective.  Australia was keen to finalize bilateral arrangements so that 
inspections of packing houses and orchards could begin in Thailand and im port permits be issued. 
49. In June 2002, Thailand reiterate d concerns that Australia re quired cutting of the product for 
inspection purposes, and applied an excessive samp le size.  Malaysia and the Philippines supported 
the concerns expressed by Thailand on this issue.  Australia indicated their willingness to consider 
alternatives to destructive sampling if their efficacy was shown.  On the basis of joint trials, X-ray 
technology appeared promising. 
50. In November 2002, Thailand recalled that it ha d been seeking access to Australia's market for 
durian since 1991.  The matter had been pursued on a bilateral basis, but to date no agreement had 
been reached.  Thailand was of the view that Australia should have c oncluded its consideration of the 
alternative method of rapid scan for inspection of import durian.  The Philippines, on behalf of 
ASEAN, expressed systemic concerns and noted their interest in monitoring developments in this 
matter.  Australia reiterated that the import conditions  were subject to review after the first year of 
trade, and that other less destructive methods of inspection could be substituted for fruit cutting, if  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 13 
 
 
  efficacy data showed that it could provide an e quivalent level of quarantine protection from the key 
pests of concern.  Australia was willing to continue to work with the Thai authorities to make progress 
on the assessment of non destructive inspection methods. 
51. In April 2003, Thailand stated that there had been little progress on its concerns as the 
measures proposed by Australia were not commercially viable.  Australia reported that alternative risk 
mitigation options such as pest free areas of pr oduction, pest free production sites and reproscan 
inspection methods were discussed by the joint Th ai-Australian working group on agriculture on 3-
7 March 2003.  The Thai authorities were consideri ng the pest free alternatives and had agreed to a 
joint collaborative trial of the reproscan inspecti on methods for the fruiting season in late April and 
June.  A longer term solution might be irradia tion and Australia understood that Thailand could be 
interested in conducting trails as no e fficacy data was currently available. 
52. In June 2003, Thailand indicated that Australia 's requirements for fresh durian imports were 
not consistent with the obligations  of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.  Australia replied that it had 
specified the use of internationa lly accepted measures su ch as destructive fruit cutting which was used 
by many countries.  Australia was prepared to c onsider alternative ways to address the quarantine 
risks associated with Thai durian fruit. 
 
155. Import requirements for Netherlands Truss Tomatoes 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  25-27), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 64-
65) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
53. The European Communities raised concerns that Australia was taking too long to conduct  an 
import risk assessment for truss tomatoes due to r easons other than technical issues.  The risk 
assessment was still incomplete after six years.  In  1999 Australia presented a draft risk assessment on 
tomatoes without green parts despite the Netherlands' explicit request  to export tomatoes on the truss.  
Truss tomatoes had been approved from New Zeal and after New Zealand had approved Australian 
imports of the same product.  On 26 March 2003, Biosecurity Australia unexpectedly indicated that 
there was no longer a need for a risk assessment for truss tomatoes.  However, import conditions were 
still pending as a draft review of the quarantine requi rements for the import of Dutch tomatoes needed 
to be circulated to stakeholders for comment.  The European Communities felt that the time period 
necessary for Australia to conduct its import risk analysis was disproportionate to the risk and 
discriminated unjustifiably between WTO Members. 
54. Australia explained that on 26 March, Biosecur ity Australia announced that imports of truss 
tomatoes would be assessed as an extension of th e technical policy recently developed for truss 
tomatoes from New Zealand – this would shorten the risk assessment process.  The draft review would include draft import conditions  and would be released to stakeholders with a 30-day comment 
period.  The finalized review document would be available before the end of May 2003. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 14  
 
  55. In June 2003, Australia reported that the dr aft import policy for truss tomatoes from the 
Netherlands had been issued  and was publicly ava ilable and stakeholders invited to comment.  A 
response to the Netherlands request for mark et access would follow soon.  The European 
Communities expressed disappointment that the draft policy was still open for comments from stakeholders and therefore far from being finalized .  The Philippines, speaking on behalf of Indonesia 
and Thailand, supported the views of the European Communities. 
 
217. Import restrictions on apples 
Raised by: New Zealand 
Supported by: Chile, United States, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1,  paras. 13-15), October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 64-68), February 2006 (G/ SPS/R/39, paras. 64-68), March 2006 
(G/SPS/R/40, paras. 38-40), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras. 32-34), 
October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 30 -32), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, 
paras. 21-24), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 28-30) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/796, WT/DS367/1, WT/DS367/5 
Solution: Dispute settlement.  Request fo r consultations September 2007.  Panel 
established January 2008. 
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
56. In June 2005, New Zealand explained that  it had been actively pursuing access to the 
Australian apple market since 1986.  Fresh apples were the second most significant horticultural 
export of New Zealand after kiwifruit.  Austra lia's ban on New Zealand apples was based on the 
perceived risk of fire blight transmission, altho ugh science had clearly demonstrated that the risk of 
mature symptomless apples in trade being vectors for the transmission of fire blight was negligible.  
Since 1999, when New Zealand made its fourth application for regaining access to the Australian 
apple market, the Australian authorities had only rel eased two draft risk analyses, systematically 
followed by a round of comments.  This undue delay of six years was unacceptable. 
57. Chile, the European Communities and the United St ates indicated that they had experienced 
similar difficulties.  The European Communities hoped that since Australia was reviewing the 
scientific justification of its 2004 risk assessment in light of the Panel findings in the Japan-Apples case, its phytosanitary import policy might improve.  The United States recalled that the major plant 
pest of concern was fire blight.  A WTO disput e settlement Panel had recently found that stringent 
control requirements were not justified on the basis of the available scientific evidence, which clearly 
demonstrated that mature symptomless apple fruit did not pose a risk of transmitting fire blight.  It 
encouraged Australia to expeditiously modify its existing import prohibitions on apples and other 
fruits due to fire blight concerns.  Chile requested to be kept informed of any progress on this issue. 
58. Australia reminded the Committee that recent changes to Austra lia's biosecurity agency had 
caused some delays in the time taken to complete a number of risk analyses.  Australia was committed 
to deliver a science-based ri sk assessment for New Zealand apples as soon as possible. 
59. In February 2006, New Zealand informed the Committee that since June 2005, Australia had 
issued a new revised draft import risk analysis for New Zealand apples.  This new revised draft 
allowed the import of New Zealand apples into Au stralia under certain conditions.  Australia had  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 15 
 
 
  already proposed a similar conditional access in res ponse to previous requests without justifying the 
scientific basis of these conditions.  Australia requi red not only that orchards be inspected by their 
own officials and found free of fire blight, but also that apples be immersed in chlorine prior to export.  These measures were unjustified.  Australia  also prohibited imports of New Zealand apples 
into Western Australia because of apple scab disea se, although another outbreak of apple scab had 
been reported in Western Australia at the time the revi sed draft import risk analysis had been released.  
New Zealand considered that Australia's biosecurity  import risk analysis process, based on cycles of 
drafts and consultations, resulted in undue delays and constituted a di sguised restriction on trade.  
These undue delays created uncertainty about whet her and when the Australian Government would 
complete its import risk analysis. 
60. The United States recalled that there was an  outstanding US request for access to the 
Australian market.  Given both the strong science and the legal record established by the WTO dispute settlement process with regard to the risk of transmitting fire blight via mature symptomless 
apples, Australia should remove its unjustified import prohibitions and ensure that its import 
requirements were based on science and consistent with the SPS Agreement. 
61. The European Communities recalled that in J une 2005, Australia had suspended its import 
risk assessment for New Zealand apples pending a revi ew in the light of the Japan-Apples case.  Then 
a new revised draft had been submitted for consider ation, leading to more delays.  The European 
Communities had similar experiences with Australia in  trying to get access for chicken meat and pig 
meat. 
62. Australia stressed that all the relevant scientific  information, including that considered in the 
Japan-Apples case, had been taken into account in the assessment of the risks from New Zealand 
apples.  The new draft report was available for co mments until 30 March 2006.  After consideration of 
comments received, a final review of the draft repo rt would be undertaken by an eminent group of 
scientists.  If this group confirmed that all releva nt information has been taken into account in the 
analysis (including stakeholder comments), the report and its recommendations on import conditions 
would be transmitted to the Director of Animal a nd Plant Quarantine for a policy determination.  The 
revised draft report took account of Australia's level of protection (ALOP).  Fi re blight was one of a 
number of pest and diseases of quara ntine concern dealt with in the revised draft report.  The report 
appropriately took into account the variations in th e phytosanitary status of different regions within 
Australia. 
63. In June 2006, New Zealand reported that it had commented on a draft risk assessment.  
Contrary to evidence considered in  the Japan-Apples case, Australia maintained that mature apples 
were a vector for fire blight.  New Zealand was of the view that volume estimates in the risk assessment should contain only New Zealand exports.   Biosecurity Australia had indicated that the 
process might conclude at the end of 2006.  If this problem - which had existed for four years - could 
not be resolved bilaterally, New Zealand would not rule out other WTO actions. 
64. The United States reiterated its request that Au stralia revise its approach in light of the 
scientific evidence and of WTO jurisprudence. 
65. Australia indicated that 40 submissions commenting on the draft import risk assessment had 
been received, and that some technical exchanges were continuing.  The draft import risk assessment 
took into account Australia's appropriate level of prot ection; fire blight was only one of the pests of 
concern.  The final report would be reviewed by an  eminent scientist group to ensure that stakeholder 
comments had been properly taken into account. 
66. In October 2006, New Zealand recalled that in December 2005, Australia had released a third 
revised draft Import Risk Analysis (IRA) for New Zealand apples, and New Zealand, in consultation G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 16  
 
  with their pip fruit industry, had provided a compre hensive submission to Biosecurity Australia on 
this revised draft.  New Zealand noted that sin ce June 2006, Biosecurity Australia had completed its 
consideration of stakeholder comments on the revised draft and a final draft report had been referred 
to Australia's Eminent Scientific Group (ESG), which had also finished its consideration of the draft 
final report and made recommendations to Biosecur ity Australia.  New Zealand had not received these 
recommendations and urged Australia to  make them available in the interest of transparency.  While 
New Zealand was reassured by the progress made in finalizing the issue with Australia, it still had 
concerns regarding the content and substance of the draft IRA.  Australia still maintained that mature 
apples were a vector for fire blight disease, irrespect ive of the science considered in the Japan apples 
dispute which had demonstrated that the risk was negligible.  New Zealand was also concerned about 
the pests and diseases addressed by Au stralia in the revised import risk analysis and hoped that the 
volume of imports assessed in the final IRA would ta ke into account only trade from New Zealand.  
New Zealand indicated its commitment to resolvin g the issue bilaterally with Australia, but was 
prepared to explore other dispute settlement op tions under the WTO system if the issue was not 
resolved in the near future. 
67. The United States shared the concerns of New Zealand and indicated that the United States 
had also provided a comprehensive submission to Biosecurity Australia on its revised draft IRA.  The United States expected that Australia's final policy determination would be cons istent with the wealth 
of scientific evidence available on the issue and the legal record established by the WTO dispute 
settlement process. 
68. Australia reported that in accordance with its normal procedure, the draft final IRA was sent 
to the independent Eminent Scientific Group ( ESG) on 1 August 2006 for review.  That group had 
60 days to conduct its review and as indicated by New Zealand, the ESG had completed the review 
and the report had been transmitted to Australia' s Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine.  
Biosecurity Australia was expected to take in to account any recommendati ons made by the ESG in 
producing its final IRA report and the report would be published.  Austra lia further noted that the final 
IRA could be appealed on the basis of any problems with the process but not in terms of the actual 
science in the report.  Once any appeal process had been completed, a final report and recommendations would be provided to the Director  of Animal and Plant Quarantine for a final 
quarantine policy determination.  The whole process w as expected to be completed by the end of 2006 
and Australia indicated that the recommendations made by the ESG would be conveyed in an appropriate fashion as determined by the Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine. 
69. In February 2007, New Zealand recalled that this issue concerned restrictions that had been in 
place for over eight decades.  New Zealand's experience had been one of frustration;  since initiating a fourth request for access in 1999, they had waited fo r over eight years for Australia to complete its 
import risk analysis (IRA) process.  While there had been some progress, the IRA had still not been 
completed before the end of 2006, as previous ly expected.  Now the IRA process was nearing 
completion, and a final IRA had been issued.  Howe ver, the conditions outlined in the final IRA were 
extensive, and it was doubtful that commercially meaningful trade would be possible under these 
conditions.  The IRA proposed tougher requirements rela ting to fire blight, in contradiction to the 
conclusions of the Japan-Apples case, and clearly in  contradiction to Australia's WTO obligations.  
There was no scientific or legal justification fo r the imposition of these measures relating to fire 
blight.  Other proposed measures relating to other pest s were also of concern, such as the requirement 
that Australian inspectors be present in orchards.  New Zealand had demonstrated its willingness to 
work with Australia on this matter, and remained co mmitted to resolving this issue.  However, if no 
progress was made in the near future, New Zeala nd could not rule out dispute settlement options. 
70. The United States recalled that her country shar ed the concerns of New Zealand, and that 
Chile and the European Communities had also raised  similar difficulties with Australia.  The major 
concern was fire blight, and the past dispute case found that stringent requirements, such as orchard  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 17 
 
 
  inspections, were not justified.  Mature apples do not  pose a risk of spreading fire blight.  Given the 
strength of the scientific and legal records, she urged Australia to rem ove its unjustified import 
restrictions without delay. 
71. The European Communities observed that undue delays appeared to be a regular, most 
troublesome, feature of the Australian IRA process.   The European Communities would address this 
concern in its comments on Australia's new IRA process. 
72. Australia reported that there had been a number of actions taken since the last meeting, and 
the issue was close to finalization.  At the end of  November 2006, Biosecurity Australia had released 
the final IRA report on apples from New Zealand.   Appeals from the final IRA report had been 
possible until 12 January 2007, on limited grounds.  There had been three appeals, but all had been 
dismissed.  The next step was for the Director of Quarantine to make a policy determination which 
would include any import requirements. 
73. In June 2007, New Zealand stated that since Au stralia had concluded its  import risk analysis 
process by issuing a Final Policy Determination on 27 March 2007, New Zealand had been closely 
engaged with Australian authorities in negotiating standard operating procedures to implement in 
practice the requirements prescribed by Australia.  New Zealand considered that these requirements 
and measures were scientifically unjustified and inconsistent with the SPS Agreement, however 
New Zealand had been negotiating a work plan and standard operating procedures in good faith in 
order to determine precisely what the conditions  would be for access of New Zealand apples into 
Australia.  Whether or not these conditions would pe rmit any commercially meaningful trade to occur 
remained to be seen, but the restrictions and cost s imposed on the NZ industry were unjustified, and 
New Zealand would keep open its options for further action. 
74. The United States noted that her country was disappointed by the March 2007 decision of 
Australia, which imposed more onerous  restrictions on apples than could be scientifically justified.  
The United States found it particularly distressing that Australia failed to take account of the available 
scientific evidence and of the previous legal proceedings, and had decided to impose onerous 
requirements on apples from New Zealand.  This  decision undermined confidence in Australia's 
commitment to ensure that SPS measures were not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. 
75. Australia reported that considerable progr ess had been made, as the determination of 
March 2007 would permit the importation of apples under certain conditions.  Australia was working 
to permit trade to commence in 2008.  The rela tionship between Australia and New Zealand on SPS 
matters was much broader than just the apple issu e, and Australia was committed to continue working 
with New Zealand on a wide range of concerns. 
 
Other concerns 
249. Reform of  Australia's IRA process 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Philippines 
Dates raised: February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, paras. 53-55) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/203 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 18  
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
76. In February 2007, the European Communities we lcomed Australia's proposed reform of its 
import risk analysis (IRA) process, and in particular the establishment of maximum timeframes for completion of IRAs.  However, it was unclear what circumstances, if any, could permit the extension or suspension of the timeframes.  How could trading partners be assured that the clock would not be 
stopped for unjustifiable reasons?  The European  Communities welcomed the establishment of the 
eminent scientists group, and expressed the hope that this would ensure that all scientific opinions 
were fully taken into account. 
77. The Philippines shared the concerns of th e European Communities, as the new process 
provided flexibility and allowed for the suspension of the timeframes.  They sought clarifications on 
what regulations under the Quarantine Act might be  modified, and the effect of the new process on 
pending requests for IRAs.  In particular, the Ph ilippines questioned whether pending IRAs would be 
subject to review by the eminent scientists group, and what would be the composition of this group. 
78. Australia clarified that pending IRAs that we re well-advanced would be finalized under the 
current rules.  Australia would announce the tran sitional arrangements, other existing market access 
requests, and their prioritization.  Australia would also clearly define the criteria for suspending the 
prescribed timeframes ("stopping the clock") - this would not be for unjustifiable reasons.  However, 
the possibility of stopping the clock was necessary in  light of experience and reflected the practical 
circumstances in completing risk assessments – for ex ample, the need to wait for information to be 
provided by an applicant country.  The details of the procedures would be publicized, and Australia 
would inform the Committee once the new procedures were in place. 
 BAHRAIN CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY BAHRAIN 
Food safety 165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar 
and United Arab Emirates 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para . 166), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, para. 17), 
October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 58 ), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, 
para. 75) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 19 
 
 
  79. In June 2003, the European Communities reporte d on the final results of the investigation 
concerning the problems with olive oil contaminat ion in Spain in 2002.  The contamination had 
occurred due to a manufacturing error, but the prob lem had since been resolved.  The restrictions 
which some Members continued to impose on Spanish olive oil were therefore no longer justified. 
80. In June 2004, the European Co mmunities raised concerns over import restrictions on Spanish 
pomace olive oil imposed by some Gulf countries.  After an isolated safety incident in 2001, some 
Members applied restrictive measures to this produc t.  Since 2001, most Members had gradually lifted 
the import ban, except the Gulf countries.  These pro ducts no longer were a risk to human or animal 
health, as corrective measures had been quickly and properly applied by the competent authorities of 
Spain.  Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the Un ited Arab Emirates were requested to immediately 
lift the ban on any type of oliv e oil imported from the European Union as the ban was not based on 
any scientific evidence. 
81. In October 2004, the European Communities stated that bilateral consultations were held with 
several Gulf countries prior to the meeting to ad dress restrictions imposed on Spanish olive oil by 
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Ar ab Emirates.  The European Communities were 
hopeful for a prompt resolution of the issue and woul d also be holding bilateral meetings with Oman 
and Kuwait. 
82. In June 2005, the European Communities info rmed the Committee that Oman, Bahrain and 
Kuweit had decided to lift the ban on EC exports of  pomace oil without further requirements such as 
certification.  The European Communities was hoping that this would allow trade to resume with 
these three Members very soon. 
 
BARBADOS 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY BARBADOS 
Plant Health 195. Restrictions on citrus 
Raised by: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004  (G/SPS/R/35, para. 218) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
83. In October 2004, the Bolivarian Republic of Ve nezuela stated that in the last two years 
Barbados had applied restrictions  to shipments of citrus from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
without demonstrating the existence of any pests or diseases.  Several bilateral consultations had taken 
place but a solution had not been reached.  Barbados  was asked to explain why these restrictions on 
citrus from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela continued to be applied. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 20  
 
  84. Barbados stated that the actions taken were consistent with their Plant Pest and Disease 
Import Control Act and Article 6 of the SPS Agreem ent.  Barbados was willing to discuss the issue 
further bilaterally and within the framework of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations between 
CARICOM and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  At the last meeting both parties had agreed to 
allow SPS experts to visit and inspect each other's country and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
had offered to cover part of the costs.  The CA RICOM secretariat had since informed the Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela of the experts that had b een nominated but no arrangements had been put in 
place for the visit. 
 
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA 
Animal Health 29. Measures related to avian influenza 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para . 25), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/19, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: US considered the trade concern unresolved 
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
85. In July 1997, the United States informed th at non-pathogenic avian influenza had been 
detected in a few north-eastern US states.  As a consequence, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
had banned the importation of US poultry and products.  The United States contested the scientific 
basis for this measure and was concer ned that it had not been notified. 
86. In July 2001, the United States indicated that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had acted 
in June 2000 to allow market access for US  processed poultry (G/SPS/GEN/265).  Venezuelan 
authorities had not responded to requests from the Unit ed States to pursue this matter bilaterally.  The 
United States believed that the measures lacked scie ntific justification and considered this trade 
concern unresolved. 
 
70. Import conditions for pork meat and products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 67) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
87. The European Communities reported that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had denied 
access to Danish pork meat and products without clearly indicating the import conditions or the 
relevant provisions.  The EC representative urge d Venezuelan authorities to notify the relevant 
measures, giving other Members a chance to comment. 
 Plant Health 93. Phytosanitary requirements fo r potatoes, garlic and onions  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Canada, United States 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 26-28), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
para. 131), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/ 25, paras. 99-100), March 2002 
(G/SPS/R/26, para. 43), June 2002 (G/ SPS/R/27, paras. 54-55), April 2003 
(G/SPS/R/29, paras. 53-54), June 2003 (S/SPS/R/30, paras. 36-38), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 23-24), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras. 63-64) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
88. In March 2001, Argentina provided informati on on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's 
import restrictions on Argentine garlic because of Urocystis cepulae that had been imposed since 
1997.  According to the terms of the Andean Pact  no quarantine measures had been adopted against 
Argentina.  Regarding potatoes, Argentina had begun  efforts to gain access to the Venezuelan market 
in 1996, and had provided the necessary informat ion for a risk assessment .  Argentina expressed 
concern at the seeming lack of will on the part of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to make 
progress on both issues.  In addition, Argentina w as concerned about a lack of coherence in the 
application of resolution 431 of the mandatory sanita ry and phytosanitary standards of the Andean 
Community, which it would raise with the And ean Community.  The Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela explained that there was no lack of will to move forward on these issues.  Regarding garlic, 
the administrative process to set up the necessary pr otocols was ongoing.  With respect to potatoes, 
the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela believed that  Argentine and Andean Community phytosanitary 
standards were not compatible.  Colombia requested  Argentina to submit its concerns to the Andean 
Community. 
89. In July 2001, Argentina inform ed the Committee that bilateral meetings had been held, and 
although the problem had not been completely so lved, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had 
demonstrated a will to find a solution.  In Oct ober 2001, Argentina requested a technical reply from 
the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to the questions  raised during a recent bilateral meeting on the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 22  
 
  sanitary restrictions on potato imports, so as to fac ilitate the start of trading in this product.  The 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela replied that it w as seeking to prevent the introduction of pests that 
existed in Argentina but were exotic to the Boliv arian Republic of Venezuela.  The sanitary services 
were evaluating the appropriateness of alternative methods, such as pest free areas, that would meet 
Argentina's legitimate trade concer ns and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's appropriate level of 
protection. 
90. In March 2002, Argentina informed that bilate ral negotiations with the Venezuelan health 
authorities had taken place, but in the protocols ag reed for importation on potatoes, garlic and onion 
the matter of certification and inspection visits by Ve nezuelan officials was left outstanding.  In view 
of the seasonal nature of these commodities, Argentin a was concerned that if the inspection visits did 
not take place soon, no exports would be possible be fore 2003.  In response, the Bolivarian Republic 
of Venezuela noted that they were awaiting a pr oposal from Argentina on a convenient date for the 
inspection visit. 
91. In June 2002, Argentina stated that there had been no progress in resolving the problems 
arising from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela' s restrictions on potatoes, garlic and onions.  
Argentina was waiting for the onsite visit which th e Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicated was 
necessary before trade could resume.  The Boliva rian Republic of Venezu ela stated that some 
revisions to its requirements had been made, and it was now organizing a technical visit to examine 
the pest surveillance systems in Argentine producing areas, with th e hope of finding a solution to the 
problem. 
92. In April 2003, Argentina informed the Comm ittee that Venezuelan technical experts had 
visited Argentina to verify its claims of freedom from onion smut ( Urocystis cepulae ).  Discussions 
had entered the final phase and the Argentine auth orities awaited the publication of the Venezuelan 
expert report which should allow th e resolution of this issue.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
reported that bilateral consultati ons with Argentina had taken place prior to the Committee meeting 
and that the expert report should be available soon. 
93. In June 2003, Argentina reported that it still had not received the final report and urged the 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to inform Argentina about the results of the visit so that trade could 
be initiated.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuel a clarified that imports from Argentina were not 
prohibited but subject to certain requirements.  Furthermore, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
had undertaken a risk assessment which provided th e necessary justifications.  The results of this 
assessment would be communicated to the Argentine health services as a part of the mutually agreed 
work plan. 
94. In October 2003, Argentina noted that Venezuelan officials had visited Argentina in 
December 2002 to confirm the absence of onion smut.  Argentina had received a report from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela just the previous  week and hoped it meant the issue was resolved.  
The United States and Canada shared Argentina's c oncerns over delays or denial of import permits 
without scientific justifications.  The Bolivarian Re public of Venezuela noted that the report had been 
sent to Argentina in March and an impor t protocol could now be completed. 
95. In March 2004, Argentina informed the Comm ittee that a technical document had been 
presented to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuel a during bilateral discussions held on 16 March 
2004.  Argentina and the Bolivarian Republic of Ve nezuela agreed to hold further discussions and 
hoped for a resolution on this issue.  The Boliv arian Republic of Venezuela reported that it had 
received the documents requested from Argentina a nd hoped for an early resolution on the issue. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 23 
 
 
  Other concerns 
123. Restrictions on imports of potatoes, onio ns, fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and meat 
products 
Raised by: Canada, Colombia 
Supported by: Chile, United States 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 27-29), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 30-32), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 55-57), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 59-61), Oc tober 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 76-
78), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 76-78) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
96. In March 2002, Colombia observed that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was not 
granting sanitary certificates for potatoes, fresh mu shrooms, fresh tomatoes, fertile eggs, day-old 
chicks and meat products and requested that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela notify the measure 
which served as the basis for the discretionary gr anting or non-issuance of health certificates for 
Colombian exports, or to lift this measure.  Ch ile, the United States and Canada supported the 
concerns expressed by Colombia. 
97. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela provide d details of import levels for potatoes, 
mushrooms and fresh tomatoes in 2001, which showed  that import licenses were being granted.  The 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had temporarily suspended SPS licensing for fertile eggs and day-
old chicks as a result of an outbreak of avian fl u in Colombia, a disease alien to the Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela, from January 2002.  On 8 February 2002, the prohibition on fertile eggs was 
removed.  Notification of the lifting of restrictions  against day-old chicks was made on 7 March 2002.  
For meat products, the Bolivarian Republic of Vene zuela noted that her country regularly imported 
beef on the hoof, slaughtered and processed beef and swine products.  In reply to the comments of 
other Members, she stated that it was important not to confuse problems of administrative capacity 
and management with discretionary licensing. 
98. In June 2004, Canada recalled that it had ra ised concerns over the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela's issuance of SPS-related permits in previous SPS Committee and Agriculture Committee 
meetings.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's po licies had restricted Canadian exports of meat, 
seed potatoes, table potatoes and onions.  The Boli varian Republic of Venezuela had not provided a 
clear explanation of this policy, however it appeared  that the permits in question were SPS-related.  
Importers would apply to Venezuelan authorities fo r permits and provide SPS information to support 
their application, but applications had been deni ed without an SPS-related justification.  Canada 
requested that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuel a grant permits on an automatic basis as long as 
the conditions of the SPS Agreement had been me t.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and 
Canada had agreed to continue to pursue this issu e bilaterally.  Chile and the United States requested 
that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela review its import procedures in order to comply with 
obligations under the SPS Agreement.  The United Stat es noted that for products not subject to tariff 
rate quotas (TRQs), the Bolivarian Republic of Ve nezuela seemed to be using SPS permits in a 
manner equivalent to import licenses. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 24  
 
  99. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated that Canadian import requests were normally 
given a positive reply.  The comments from Canada, Chile and the United States  would be considered 
carefully.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela woul d contact the Canadian authorities to clarify the 
situation concerning import requests of meat. 
100. In March 2005, Canada reitera ted its long-standing concerns about discretionary import 
licensing being used by the sanitary and phytosan itary authorities of the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela to restrict imports of potatoes, onions and pork from Canada.  There had recently been two 
substantive meetings with senior delegations fro m Caracas and Canada hoped this issue would soon 
be resolved. 
101. The United States shared Canada's concerns re garding the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's 
restrictive import licensing and SPS permit regimes.  The United States was specifically concerned 
about:  (1) the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuel a's use of SPS permits to enforce quotas based on 
economic rather than scientific justifications;  (2) the lack of transparency and the apparent 
inconsistency of the import permit/li cense approval process which resulte d in significant delays in the 
issuance of some permits and licenses compared to others and which arbitrarily reduced the quantity 
approved for import compared to the requested amount;  and (3) the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela's insistence on requiring importers and users of imported products to purchase domestically produced commodities in order to  gain approval or permission to import. 
102. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela confirmed the fruitful consultations with Canada and 
hoped to report the resolution of this problem at the next Committee meeting. 
103. In June 2005, Canada indicated that, wit hout any SPS justification and despite having 
negotiated a sanitary agreement a few years ago, Ve nezuelan pork importers had never been able to 
obtain import permits from the Venezuelan sanitary authorities for Canadian pork.  Permits for seed 
or table potatoes had not been issued for long periods of time.  Bilateral efforts to resolve the problem 
were continuing. 
104. The United States noted that if the Bolivaria n Republic of Venezuela's restrictive import 
regime was based on SPS permits as opposed to  import licenses, as the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela had implied in the Import Licensing Co mmittee, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
should explain the risk being addressed through th is permit and supply the supporting risk assessment. 
105. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela took note of Canada's concerns and noted that bilateral 
negotiations were continuing. 
106. In February 2006, Canada indicated that this  issue was of long duration and frustration.  
Under the WTO rules, issuance of import perm its was automatic unless there were underlying SPS 
concerns.  Canadian table potatoes, onions and pork were being refused without any rationale.  Unless 
the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had identified legitimate SPS concerns, it should expeditiously 
issue import licenses for agricultural produc ts from Canada on an automatic basis. 
107. The United States reported its concern about the lack of progress on this issue as US exports 
of yellow corn, oilseeds and dairy products had been affected by the restrictions. 
108. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela noted that  a number of the requests Canada had made 
in March had been addressed, and the Bolivarian Re public of Venezuela had issued permits to import 
Canadian pork and potatoes.  Venezuelan technician s were preparing a visit to Canada to inspect 
potatoes to be exported to the Bolivarian Republic  of Venezuela.  The Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela was willing to carry out additional bilate ral meetings to find a mutually satisfactory 
solution to Canada's concerns.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 25 
 
 
   
BOLIVIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA 
Animal Health 205. Slaughter of imported breeding cattle 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1,  paras. 45-47), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
paras. 19-20), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, paras. 144-145) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
109. In March 2005, Mexico stated that Bolivia ha d slaughtered a number of Mexican cattle in 
2004 on the grounds that Mexico was a high-risk country  for BSE.  Mexico considered this to be in 
breach of Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5, 6 and Annex C of th e SPS Agreement.  BSE was classified as an exotic 
illness in Mexico, as Mexico was free of the disease.  At the end of 1996, the Mexican animal health 
authorities had implemented an epidemiological su rveillance programme for BSE, based on the OIE 
recommendations. 
110. Bolivia clarified that the Mexican cattle had b een slaughtered because they had arrived at 
Bolivia's airport without the relevant animal health  permit.  Bolivian health authorities had required 
the re-exportation or the disposal of the cattle.  Du e to inaction by the Mexican authorities, the cattle 
had been slaughtered.  Mexico concluded that  the issue with Bolivia had been resolved. 
111. In June 2006, Mexico recalled that a Mexican association, FOGAMEX, had been invited to 
show some cattle at a fair in Santa Cruz, Bo livia.  Although the requirements communicated by 
Bolivia's animal health authority (SENASAG) ha d been fulfilled and an import permit had been 
obtained, when the cattle arrived in Bolivia, SENAS AG had seized the animals and ordered that they 
be returned to Mexico.  However, since foot a nd mouth disease exists in Bolivia while it does not 
exist in Mexico, it was not possible to return the animals to Mexico.  After weeks of negotiations, and 
after the Bolivian authorities had revoked the impor t permit although the cattle had already arrived, 
Bolivia decided to slaughter the cattle.  Months la ter, in the context of a lawsuit filed by FOGAMEX 
against SENASAG, the Bolivian Supreme Court in Santa Cruz found that SENASAG had withheld 
the import permits without legal basis and orde red SENASAG to cover th e damages.  Formal 
consultations held in La Paz, Bolivia, in 2005 had not led to an agreement.  Since then, bilateral 
efforts had continued to try to obtain an offici al and public apology from the Bolivian Government 
and payment for damages caused. 
112. Bolivia indicated that in the absence of OIE guidance, the competent Bolivian authorities had 
followed national and Andean Community sanitary requirements, which required a risk assessment 
before an import permit was issued.  The an imal health authorities received insufficient 
documentation to carry out a risk assessment only two days before the cattle arrived.  According to 
the Andean regulations, the cattle thus had to be  slaughtered or re-exported.  After granting a G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 26  
 
  reasonable period to allow the interested parties to  organize the re-exportation of the cattle, which had 
not been possible, the Bolivian authorities had sla ughtered the cattle to ensure adequate health 
protection in Bolivia and in the region.  Bilateral e fforts were underway to find a mutually satisfactory 
solution to Mexico's concern about the economic  damage suffered by the Mexican exporter. 
113. In February 2007, Mexico recalled that although Bolivia had issued permits for the entry of 
the Mexican breeding cattle for participation in a trade fair, upon their arrival Bolivia had refused 
entry and ordered that the cattle to be sent back  to Mexico.  This was not possible because FMD 
existed in Bolivia but not in Mexico.  Bolivia had falsely claimed that Mexico was a high risk source 
of BSE, and had slaughtered the cattle.  Although the Supreme Court of Santa Cruz in Bolivia had 
ordered payment of reparations to Mexico, this had not yet occurred. 
114. Bolivia indicated that when the 25 head of cattle had arrived in Bolivia, his authorities 
realized that the procedures for this type of importation had not been properly applied 
(G/SPS/GEN/768).  Before such impor tation could be permitted, Bolivia  needed to complete a risk 
assessment for BSE, but this was not possible as not enough information had been provided by 
Mexico, nor was there sufficient time to complete the analysis.  Bolivia had proposed returning the 
cattle to Mexico, as they had in fact arrived in an FMD-free area, but when  Mexico refused to accept 
them, the cattle were slaughtered.  Recognition of Mexico as BSE-free needed to be referred to the 
OIE.  Bolivia noted that the company involved had not followed up on the judgement of the court. 
 
BRAZIL 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL 
Food safety 
5. Import requirements for wine 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para . 13), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 23) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/13/Rev.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
115. In May 1996, the European Communities expr essed concern that proposed Brazilian import 
requirements for wine had not been notified.  Th e European Communities was concerned that Brazil 
was apparently requiring that establishments in exporting countries be inspected and approved by 
Brazilian authorities.  The European Communiti es considered its own requirements for wine 
production to be at least equivalent to those in Braz il with respect to the safety of the product for the 
consumer, and planned to present written comment s to Brazil once an SPS notification had been 
made. 
116. In March 1997, the European Communities qu estioned Brazil's measure on wine exports, 
notified as G/SPS/N/BRA/13/Rev.1 on 6 February 1997, stating that it was not clear what requirements producers faced.  The European  Communities questioned whether inspection  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 27 
 
 
  requirements for individual establishments were based on science, and expressed concern over 
certification requirements for individual consignments  rather than more general, generic types of 
certification.  Brazil noted that the proposed legi slation would not be adop ted before 16 May 1997, 
and that the full text of the proposed legislati on was available from the Brazilian Enquiry Point.  
Although Brazil insisted that its legislation was in conformity with the SPS Agreement, and not 
substantially different from legislation in place in several European countries, it was open for bilateral 
discussions on the subject. 
 
Animal Health 
140. Imports of live ostriches 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 97) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/67 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
117. The European Communities stated th at they would bilaterally request clarification of the legal 
scope and scientific grounds for the measure.  Brazil reported that the import restriction on live 
ostriches was due to the possible threats posed to the Brazilian poultry industry.  The regulation that 
had been notified to the SPS Committee required th at the OIE existing standards for inspection, 
supervision and quarantine requirements, both at the point of origin and the point of destiny, be 
followed.  Brazil took note of the request from th e European Communities to provide the necessary 
risk assessment for the non OIE-listed diseases and agr eed to convey this request to the relevant 
authorities. 
 218. Lack of recognition of regionalization a nd disease-free status for classical swine fever 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 42-44) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
118. In June 2005, the European Communities recalle d its concerns regarding Brazil's lack of 
recognition of regionalization and disease-free status for several animal diseases, including classical 
swine fever (CSF).  French exports of pig products  to Brazil were experiencing restrictions, although 
the domestic EC pig population was free of CSF according to OIE standards.  CSF in France was G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 28  
 
  epidemiologically under control, with strict veteri nary and police surveillance and systems for animal 
identification and traceability. 
119. Brazil responded that its measures regarding regionalization for CSF in the European 
Communities were based on an assessment of the ri sks for disease spread, taking into account the size 
of the proposed CSF-free area and considering th e epidemiological characteristics of the disease 
agent.  These control measures were scientifica lly supported by Article 2.6.7.3 of the 2004 OIE 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  Moreover, th e disease agent could be found in the wild boar 
population, which made more difficult the establishm ent of control measures for a proposed disease-
free area.  The probability of the CSF agent spreading to domestic pigs had to be considered.  During 
bilateral meetings in April 2005, Brazil had proposed  the establishment of a bilateral expert working 
group to define risk analysis criteria related to equivalent regionalization procedures.  The Brazilian 
sanitary authorities were currently working with the bila teral expert group in order to define criteria.  
Brazil had a regular and continuous CSF-free zone which covered almost all commercial swine herds. 
 
237. Lack of regionalization for Newcastl e disease and restrictions on live birds 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, paras. 30-33) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
120. The European Communities raised concerns re garding import restrictions applied to EC 
products related to the failure to recognize regi onalization and the disease-free status of some EC 
member States.  France had made several offici al requests for recognition of regionalization for 
Newcastle disease to the Brazilian authorities dur ing 2005 and 2006, however   no recognition of 
regionalization had been made by the Brazilian competent authorities. 
121. The EC member States did not understand why Br azil refused to recognize regionalization for 
Newcastle disease while the Eu ropean Communities recognized regionalization of Brazil for 
Newcastle disease and for other major animal di seases.  A situation where a whole country was 
affected by a ban when only a limited part of its territory was affected by a disease did not fit the concept of regionalization promoted by the SPS Agre ement.  Trade had to be allowed from other 
areas or regions within a country where the disease  did not exist.  The European Communities urged 
Brazil to respect Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, to  follow the international rules set up by the OIE 
and to respond positively to legitimate requests for th e application of the principle of regionalization 
for EC member States. 
122. Brazil reported that due to an outbreak of Newcastle disease in the French department of the 
Loire Atlantique, reported to the OIE on 27 July  2005, on 5 August 2005 Braz il suspended imports of 
live birds and avian genetic material, exclusively from that French department.  Another case was notified to the OIE on 21 October 2005 in the Port  de Calais department, whereupon Brazil extended 
the import restrictions to the whole of the French  territory.  A further outbreak of Newcastle disease 
was subsequently notified in another French de partment on 18 November 2005.  French health 
authorities denied any epidemiological connecti on between the outbreaks and reported that the  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 29 
 
 
  outbreaks had been related to contamination by mi grating birds.  On 25 February 2006, a case of 
highly pathogenic (AI) was identified in France, wh ich once again was attributed to contamination by 
migrating birds. 
123. In the light of all the outbreaks attributed to migrating birds, Brazil decided to monitor the 
situation in France with regard to  bird diseases, in order to protect its own population.  Brazil wished 
to maintain good trade relations with France and the European Communities, and applied fully the 
provisions of Article 6 on regionalization.  Howeve r, the outbreaks of Newcastle disease, the available 
information and the recent occurrence of AI were a ll relevant.  Brazil was the world's largest exporter 
of chicken, and needed to maintain its status as free of AI. 
 Plant Health 46. Import prohibition of coconut palms and related products 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by: Sri Lanka, Malaysia 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, par as. 25-26), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and 
Corr.1, paras. 5-6) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
124. In June 1998, the Philippines submitted a series of  detailed questions to Brazil regarding its 
import prohibition of coconut palms and related products.  Brazil answered that the measure was in 
place to prevent the spread of quarantine pests.  Brazil continued to import coconut palms and related 
products from pest-free countries, if shipments were accompanied by a phyto sanitary certificate, but 
only one country had applied for pest-free status.  Br azil stressed that its measure was in conformity 
with the SPS Agreement and the text of the IPPC, and that the risk assessment methodology used had 
been notified. 
125. In September 1998, the Philippines reported that it had received no clear answers from Brazil, 
and reiterated its questions.  Braz il specified which diseases it was concerned about.  Its phytosanitary 
requirements had been extended to desiccated coconut, as there was a risk of transmission of pests or 
exotic pathogens.  Nonetheless, Brazil was prep ared to discuss proposals for risk evaluation and 
recognition of pest-free areas. 
 
141. Pest risk assessments for imports of plant origin 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Australia, New Zealand, Pe ru, United States, European Communities 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28 , paras. 77-79) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/65 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 30  
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
126. Canada referred to Brazil's legislative requireme nt for pest risk assessments for all vegetable 
products imported into Brazil, published on 28 March 2002.  While Canada did not challenge the right 
of Brazil to conduct pest risk analysis for impor ted commodities, they cons idered the measure as 
unduly restrictive of trade, in particular given that imports would be suspended on 27 November 
2002, pending completion of the pest risk assessment s.  Canada had exported a number of products 
covered by this measure for many years without any particular concern, and requested Brazil to allow 
existing trade from well known sources to continue while the pest risk assessments were being 
completed.  In this regard, Canada was prepared to provide the information required to facilitate the 
early completion of any risk assessmen ts concerning products from Canada. 
127. The United States did not believe that it was necess ary or justifiable to ban or temporarily halt 
the importation of products while PRAs were being conducted unless there was a specific pest risk 
problem that would required such drastic action.  Australia, the European Communities, New Zealand 
and Peru shared the concerns expressed by Cana da and the United States and requested Brazil to 
withdraw the application of the measure. 
128. Brazil stated that one key concern was that  many PRAs were open-ended and the studies 
never came to completion.  Brazil was reassessing the matter and consideri ng alternatives to the 
PRAs, such as the possibility of extending the time- frame for implementation of the measure in the 
case of ongoing studies, including cases where documen ts had already been forwarded to Brazil.  
Brazil requested trading partners to identify their concerns in writing, so that responses could be 
provided by the competent authorities. 
 CANADA CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA Food safety 6. Importation of cheese 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Switzerland 
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para. 14) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CAN/8 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
129. The European Communities raised concerns w ith a proposed Canadian requirement that 
cheese be pasteurized or produced from pasteurized milk.  The Eu ropean Communities considered  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 31 
 
 
  that its measures, including production requireme nts, safe and correct sourcing and subsequent 
supervision in the various production stages from fa rm to consumer, provided at least equivalent 
guarantees in terms of food safety.  The European Communities observed that a number of Members maintained restrictions on imports of raw milk  cheeses from the European Communities which were 
not justifiable on health grounds.  Canada noted  that on request it would provide scientific 
documentation in support of the proposal, and that an  expert advisory committee had been appointed 
to examine the matter. 
 
Animal Health 
15. Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 24-25) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CAN/18 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
130. The European Communities argued that the Canadian policy went beyond what could be 
scientifically justified, and was furthermore not in  conformity with the OIE Code.  The European 
Communities noted that (i) no distinction was made between high and low incidence countries;  (ii) 
there were provisions for whole-herd slaughter and slaughter of mother as well as of progeny despite 
BSE not being considered as a herd disease and unfina lized investigations on maternal transmission; 
and, (iii) the Canadian policy required BSE to have been notifiable for six years under an active 
surveillance programme and that imports would be  allowed only after six years of absence of the 
disease.  Also, the proposed policy implied that Canada would not accept meat from any country 
which had imported meat and bone meal from a c ountry which had a case of BSE.  Under these 
conditions only one EC member Stat e would qualify to export meat to Canada.  Canada explained that 
while the BSE policy was already in force, some  changes were proposed.  It was on these draft 
changes that comments were being sought.  The time for comments would be extended. 
 
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free co untries – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, page 1] 
Raised by: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Repub lic, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia 
Supported by: United States, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  18-25), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 48) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/247, G/SPS/N/ARG/59, G/SPS/N/AUS/125, 
G/SPS/N/CAN/94, G/SPS/N/KOR/83, G/SPS/N/NZL/77, 
G/SPS/N/USA/379 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 32  
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
131. On behalf of a group of countries (see table a bove), Romania drew attention to a number of 
emergency notifications banning imports of certain  animal products from countries that were BSE-
free.  These measures violated the SPS Agreemen t since they were not based on a proper risk 
assessment.  The affected countries were willing to provide the necessary documentation of their 
BSE-free status.  The European Communities added th at testing or suspension of imports of milk, 
dairy products, collagen and gelatine for BSE was not in conformity with OIE guidelines, and 
requested Members to adapt their requirements to  the international standard.  The United States 
affirmed that BSE-related measures must be based on science and international standards.  The United 
States, although BSE-free, had also been affected by  import restrictions, some of them imposed by 
countries sponsoring the statement presented by Ro mania.  The United States had provided evidence 
on its freedom from BSE, its surveillance system a nd control measures to interested trade partners, 
and required similar data from c ountries that may pose a BSE risk.  The United States looked forward 
to receiving the necessary informa tion to assess the risks involved. 
132. New Zealand and Australia were concerned over the increase in known incidence of the 
disease in Europe as a result of intensified testing, and had issued emergency food standards to protect 
public health.  They were developing permanent measures, which would be notified to allow for 
comments from interested Members.  Canada had not recognized any of the countries of the joint 
declaration as BSE-free, and would evaluate individual countries based on a risk assessment as soon as the necessary information was received.  Kor ea indicated that a temporary measure had been 
introduced because of the increased  prevalence of BSE in Europe.  Korea would seek the additional 
information necessary for a more objective assessment of  the risks involved.  Argentina indicated that 
its emergency measure was based on the scientific info rmation available at the time, and stressed that 
any new information received would be considered.  Bu lgaria pointed out that according to Article 5.7 
Members were obliged to request additional information when temporary measures were 
implemented.  Brazil reaffirmed Members' right to  go beyond international guidelines based on a risk 
assessment, but stressed that this should only ta ke place once the necessary information had been 
provided. 
133. In July 2001, Bulgaria reitera ted its concern regarding import restrictions affecting BSE-free 
countries. 
 
88. Import restrictions due to FMD – Maintained by Canada and United States 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 90-91), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
para. 133) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 33 
 
 
   
134. In March 2001, Hungary expressed concern about  reported US and Canadian import bans on 
Hungarian meat products in reaction to incidences of  FMD in France.  Canada and the United States 
clarified that they had not placed any restrictions  on the importation of prod ucts from Hungary.  In 
July 2001, Hungary reiterated its concern regarding US measures on meat and other animal products 
that were in force since May 2000.  Hungary referred to G/SPS/GEN/266, which listed Hungary as a 
country free of FMD and rinderpest.  The United States offered to work with the appropriate officials 
to explain the situation. 
 
CHILE 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE 
Food safety 9. Zero-tolerance for salmone lla in imported poultry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Slovak Republic 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, paras. 18-25), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, 
paras. 52-53), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GN/3, G/SPS/N/CZE/8, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
135. In October 1996, the United States indicated that a number of Members discriminated 
between standards for control of salmonella in domes tic versus imported poultr y products.  Chile, the 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Slova kia and Honduras applied so-ca lled zero-tolerance standards, 
which was a misleading name since none of these Members appeared to have eradication or 
surveillance systems in place to establish non- existence of salmonella in domestic products. 
136. The Slovak Republic responded that it did not ap ply a zero-tolerance standard, but rather 
required ante- and post-mortem treatment of sl aughter poultry, for domestic and imported poultry 
meat.  The Czech Republic clarified that its regul ations required negative results on salmonella tests 
in poultry holdings and slaughterhouses.  Czech requirements were laid out in the Draft Law on 
Foodstuff and Tobacco Products to be adopted in 1997, notified as G/SPS/N/CZE/8.  No assurances 
had been received from the United States that thes e requirements would be met.  The Czech Republic 
suggested bilateral consultations between veterinary experts.  Th e representatives of Honduras and 
El Salvador indicated that they would inform th eir authorities of the statement made by the United 
States. 
137. Chile observed that bilateral consultations on salmonella had started in 1992.  The US 
concern was probably due to a misunderstanding of  Chile's sanitary requirements, which required 
tests to determine the level of salmonella.  The resu lt was compared with the level of prevalence in the 
exporting country, which was part of Chile's risk assessment procedure.  Chile was aware that the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 34  
 
  United States had difficulties in complying with this  requirement given the high level of prevalence of 
salmonella domestically.  Given the US situation,  the Chilean government was prepared to show a 
certain flexibility and would consider imports of  irradiated poultry from the United States as a 
possible alternative. 
138. In March 1997, the United States reiterated its concerns.  In particular, Chile had not 
substantiated its claim that salmonella was less prev alent in domestic poultry stocks compared to the 
imported product, and the Czech Republic conti nued to maintain a zero-tolerance policy.  
Furthermore, the United States was interested to know when legislation would be implemented to 
harmonize requirements for poultry meat imports in the Central American Common market.  In response, Chile recalled its arguments made at the previous meeting, and remained open to further 
discussion with the United States.  In February 20 01, the Czech Republic reported that its new Law on 
Foodstuff and Tobacco Products had been adopted (d ecree 298/1997), and than it had been in contact 
with the United States since then. 
139. In July 2001, the United States reported that  it was still discussing the matter with Chile 
(G/SPS/GEN/265). 
 
Animal Health 
260. Requirements for quarant ine treatment of aircraft  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 16-17) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHL/253 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
140. In October 2007, Argentina indicated that in April 2007, Chile notified the quarantine 
treatment of aircraft landing in Chile from area s with high levels of pests (G/SPS/N/CHL/253).  
Fumigation with pesticides and insecticides was requi red every time the aircraft required cleaning.  
This treatment could prevent the export of live bees  from Argentina via any aircraft which landed in 
Chile.  Argentina had conveyed their concerns to the Chilean focal point to ensure that these measures 
not unduly affect Argentine exports, and more sp ecifically, that live bees not be killed by the 
fumigation. 
141. Chile clarified that the measure in question co rresponded to the updating of a law that had 
been in place since 2006, and that the amendments pr oposed were an attempt to facilitate rather than 
hinder trade.  A procedural manual had been devel oped that included clear technical specifications to 
ensure proper fumigation of the aircraft.  Regarding benign insects such as bees, the concentrations of 
insecticides would be far less than what was spec ified in the past.  Although there was no obligation 
to notify this measure, Chile had chosen to de monstrate implementation of the principles of 
transparency by going beyond what was required.  The measure had not yet entered into force and 
Chile was reviewing comments received from other c ountries.  Chile would have preferred to see this 
issue addressed bilaterally, and informal mee tings with Argentina had proceeded positively.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 35 
 
 
   
CHINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA Food safety 114. Food safety regulations affecting agric ultural products produced from modern 
biotechnology 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Canada 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 12-14), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, 
paras. 21-23), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 93-94) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/10 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
142. In March 2002, the United States had expressed serious concerns about China's Ministry of 
Agriculture implementing regulations for the mana gement of agricultural biotechnology products.  
These regulations, originally published on 6 June  2001, were released without warning on 
7 January 2002.  The regulations, which required pre-market approval and mandatory labelling of 
biotech products and affected GMO imports, were scheduled to go into effect on 20 March 2002.  The 
United States noted that China had not notified these regulations to the WTO, precluding any chance for comment by interested WTO Members.  Furt hermore, certain aspects of the new regulations 
appeared to be inconsistent with WTO rules,  and established different approval procedures for 
imported and domestic products.  The United Stat es welcomed the interi m measures issued on 
11 March 2002, which streamlined measures for th e importation of biotech agricultural products 
through 20 December 2002.  Canada, Argentina and Australia associated themselves with the 
concerns expressed by the United States. 
143. China explained that public anxiety country over the safety of GM agricultural products and 
foods had led the Chinese Government to issue regul atory rules in May 2001.  As China was not at 
that time a WTO Member, it had no obligation to make  a notification.  However, China intended to 
notify the three implementing measures issued in January 2002 once the English versions had been 
finalized.  China reported that bilateral consultations  had been held with the major parties concerned 
and that interim measures had been introduced to avoid disruption of normal trade. 
144. In June 2002, the United States reported that Chin a's Ministry of Health had issued a decree 
on biotech safety and labelling on 8 April 2002.  The decree would take effect on 8 July, but the Ministry of Health had not issued implementing re gulations.  Additionally, the decree had not been 
notified.  The United States believed that mandato ry labelling for biotech products that were 
substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts had no scien tific justification.  Under such 
circumstances, labelling wrongly implied a possible ri sk to the consumer.  US companies exported to 
China over US$1 billion/year of biotechnology produc ts, including soybeans and corn, and processed 
products.  The United States requested  an interim period for implemen tation of the decree, to allow 
sufficient time for compliance by exporters.  Canada  and Argentina shared the concerns expressed by 
the United States.  China explained that the failu re to notify the measure in advance had been G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 36  
 
  inadvertent, and invited Members to send comments to its Enquiry Point or directly to the Ministry of 
Health.  China also expressed an interest in hol ding bilateral consultations  with interested WTO 
Members. 
145. In November 2002, the United States and Argentina expressed concern regarding the 
implementation dates proposed for the April regula tions and requested China to consider ways to 
reduce the possible trade effects.  Argentina also re ported that it had held bila teral consultations with 
China on this matter.  China clarified that notifica tion of the draft regulation had been submitted just 
prior to the last SPS Committee meeting.  China's Mini stry of Health had agreed to extend the interim 
period for one year. 
 142. Zero tolerance for e-coli 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 87-88) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/CHN/6 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
146. The United States recognized the need for Chin a to reduce bacterial contamination on raw 
meats and poultry products to the lowest achievable  level but had two con cerns related to this 
notification.  The United States believed that the comp lete elimination of enteropathogenic bacteria in 
raw meats and poultry products was not achievable using existing technologies and practices and they 
were interested in more information related to th e risk assessment that had b een used as the basis for 
this zero tolerance.  Experience in the United States had shown that carcasses of normal healthy birds and animals could still contain a variety of bacteria , including those of concern to China, but proper 
preparation and handling could eliminate health co ncerns.  As the basis of China's notification 
appeared to be food safety and human health con cerns, the United States requested that China also 
notify this proposed regulation under the SPS Agreem ent.  China agreed to consult with the 
standardizing agency and take the necessary steps. 
 
251. Zero tolerance for pathogens on  raw meat and poultry products  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 37 
 
 
  147. In June 2007, the United States indicated that China maintained an unrealistic zero tolerance 
level for pathogens in raw meat a nd poultry products.  This requirement  far exceeded the international 
standards;  was more trade restrictive than neces sary;  and lacked scientific justification.  The 
United States was also concerned that while several  US poultry plants had been de-listed because of 
this requirement, a similar zero tolerance was a pparently not applied to Chinese-produced products. 
148. China observed that this issue had been previ ously discussed bilaterally and would again be 
addressed at a meeting scheduled for September.  The requirement that food be free from microbiological contamination applied both to im ported and domestic products.  Health problems 
relating to microbiological contamination had occu rred in the United States, such as the situation 
involving spinach, and many Members had similar re quirements to protect the health and safety of 
consumers. 
 
Animal Health 
128. Import requirements for cosmetics 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras. 13-14), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 50-51), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 39-40) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
149. The European Communities noted that China had imposed import restrictions on cosmetics 
beginning in March 2002.  The new regulations prohib ited cosmetics containing certain ingredients of 
animal origin from 18 countries having officially declared the existence of  BSE.  Cosmetics from 
these 18 countries required certification that they did not contain specified products of bovine or ovine 
origin.  According to China's notification, the jus tification of the measure was to prevent introducing 
BSE into China.  The European Communities considered that the m easures were in contradiction to 
the SPS Agreement.  China had notified its measur es as emergency measures, whereas BSE had been 
present in those countries for many years and th ere was no new scientific evidence indicating a 
particular risk from cosmetics.  In addition, th e measures had no scientific basis and went far beyond 
the OIE standard on BSE and were disproportionate co mpared to the risks.  The measures were also 
discriminatory, because they did not apply in th e same manner to all countries where identical 
sanitary conditions prevailed.  Th e European Communities requested that China make available the 
scientific justification and the risk assessment underlying the measure. 
150. China indicated that it only prohibited the im portation of cosmetics derived from bovine or 
ovine brains, placenta, nerves, etc. from BSE-infect ed countries and regions, in accordance with the 
OIE and WHO recommendations.  China had notifie d its measure and requested exporting countries 
to provide the names and signatures of the author ities responsible for issuing the certificates ensuring 
that the cosmetics met the Chinese requirements.   Several EC member States had proceeded 
accordingly and China had recognized, or was in th e process of recognizing, the competent certifying 
authorities of those member States. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 38  
 
  151. In November 2002, the European Communities re ported good progress in resolving this issue.  
Extensive bilateral trade in cosmetics between Ch ina and the European Communities had taken place 
before China introduced the new provisions, and in pa rticular the protective measures related to BSE.  
EC experts on BSE-related risk assessment were to vi sit Beijing, and both countries were hopeful that 
the discussions would lead to a resolution of the problem. 
152. In June 2003, the European Communities repor ted that further progress was made as China 
had presented a list of prohibited products.  Ch ina responded that it was willing to review its 
regulations and welcom ed continued dialogue. 
 
255. Application of regionalization and prohibition of bovine meat  
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, pa ras. 26-27), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, 
para. 203) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
153. In June 2007, Brazil indicated that China con tinued to prohibit meat products that had been 
treated to prevent the potential spread of FMD and furthermore failed to apply the concept of 
regionalization in accordance with Article 6 of th e SPS Agreement.  China had not notified these 
measures;  Brazilian exporters learned of them only when shipments were bloc ked.  Numerous efforts 
to resolve these problems bilaterally had not su cceeded, and China had not responded to Brazil's 
requests for justification.  Brazil requested that Ch ina adjust it requirements to take into account the 
OIE-recognized FMD-free zones, and to remove  restrictions on products whose processing 
inactivated the FMD virus, such as gelatine and dairy products. 
154. China recalled that there had been an FMD out break in Brazil in 2005, which led China to 
impose emergency measures.  However, progress ha d been made through bila teral consultations.  
China had provided a questionnaire to Brazil with respect to the recognition of FMD-free zones in 
June 2006, and had received a reply only in March 2007.  This respon se was now being considered by 
experts in risk assessment to determine whether a visit was needed to verify information.  With regard 
to the ban on Brazilian beef, China had provided Braz il with draft protocol last year, and received 
some feedback in February 2007.  However, this  response was not complete, and China was waiting 
for further reply.  China remained willing to furt her discuss this matter with Brazil at the technical 
expert level, as good and efficient cooperation was required to resolve the issue quickly. 
155. In October 2007, Brazil informed Members th at since the last session of the Committee, 
Brazil and China had held a bilate ral meeting and they were hopeful to resolve this issue through 
more bilateral dialogue in the near future. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 39 
 
 
  259. Avian influenza restrictions  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 14-15) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
156. In October 2007, the United States observed that China prohibited imports of poultry and 
poultry products from seven US states (Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, West 
Virginia, Nebraska and Virginia) which had experi enced cases of low-pathogenic avian influenza 
(AI).  For some of these states, the cases had been completely eradicated for more than two or three 
years.  The prohibition extended even to heat-treated products, a process that inac tivated the AI virus.  
There was no scientific justification for the restric tions China had imposed, which were inconsistent 
with the provision of the OIE's AI guidelines.  The United States had provided China with extensive 
information of the AI status of these states, and urged China to lift its import restrictions immediately, 
and to align its measures with the provisions of the OIE guidelines. 
157. China responded that the ban on poultry products from these states was based on risk analysis 
and on the principle of regionalization of the OIE.  Since the beginning of the year, AI had appeared 
in three other states and China was concerned with  the spreading tendency of low-pathogenic strains 
of AI in the United States.  Regarding the four st ates where AI had already been eliminated, China 
was conducting a risk analysis based on the inform ation provided by the United States.  China had 
notified the United States on 15 August that accordi ng to the relevant Chinese regulations, poultry 
products coming either directly or indirectly from areas with AI were not allowed to enter China.  
Regarding heat-treated products, China invited th e United States to provide relevant technical 
information, including processing techniques and flow  charts of cooked poultry meat, so that China 
could undertake a risk analysis. 
 
Plant Health 
143. Regulation on wood packaging material 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,  paras. 38-39), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, 
paras. 39-40) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/14 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 40  
 
  158. The European Communities stated that a num ber of aspects of the Chinese regulation on 
wood packaging material, notified as G/SPS/N/CHN/ 14, caused serious problems.  There were 
important discrepancies between the Chinese legislation and relevant guidelines from the IPPC, in particular ISPM 15.  The European Communities had gone to considerable lengths to address the 
concerns of the Chinese authorities, and a lot of progress had been made in particular following a visit 
from a number of experts to China.  The Europ ean Communities encouraged China to come into 
conformity with the IPPC standard as expeditiously  as possible, and to work towards resolving the 
issue. 
159. China reported that during 2001 and 2002, large num bers of pests were regularly detected by 
the inspection and quarantine authorities of China in wood packaging material from the European 
Communities.  China had notified this situation to  the European Communities repeatedly, and finally 
decided to take emergency measures on 19 April 2002 in order to prevent the introduction of 
dangerous wood pests, and to ensure  the protection of the environment, forestry and tourism resources 
in the country.  The notification and the risk anal ysis report were sent to the European Communities 
for comments, to which China replied in detail on 17 June 2002.  Following that date no further 
comments had been received from the European Communities; the measure had been imposed on 
28 June 2002, and notified to the WTO.  The measu re was based on scientific principles and on a risk 
analysis in line with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement. 
160. In June 2003, the European Communities reported that they had now adopted the IPPC 
standard and China had promised to do the same .  China reaffirmed that it was committed to 
following the IPPC standard. 
 
261. Varietal restrictions on US apples 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 18-19) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
161. In October 2007, the United States stated that China currently limited imports of US apples to 
just two varieties:  Golden Delicious and Red Delicious.  Seven years ago, the United States had 
requested that China allow access fo r all varieties of apples.  Extensive scientific information had 
been provided to Chinese officials in support of th is request.  China recently  requested information 
related to fire blight and indicated that its import r estrictions on additional varieties of US apples were 
primarily related to concerns over fire blight.  The issue of varietal restrictions on imported fruit and 
fire blight restrictions on mature, symptomless a pples had been addressed by WTO dispute settlement 
panels.  The United States urged China to review the findings of these panels and to adjust its 
restrictions on US apples appropriately. 
162. China noted that in 1995, the two fire blight r esistant varieties mentioned by the United States 
were allowed to be imported into China.  In 2006, a request was made to China for other varieties.  
These new varieties were not fire blight resistant, so  China had to deal with this request on the basis 
of risk analysis.  China had taken note of the WT O dispute settlement case relating to fire blight;   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 41 
 
 
  however, it still believed mature appl es had the potential to serve as a pathway for the disease.  An 
experiment recently carried out by Japan had also shown that mature apples could serve as a pathway 
for the disease.  China asked the Unite d States to provide additional technical material relevant to fire 
blight and other apple pests as soon as possible in or der to complete the mark et access process.  China 
would handle this matter on a scientific basis and ha d recently organized a group of experts to speed 
up the application review process.  At present no va rieties of Chinese apples were allowed into the 
United States because the risk analysis had not yet b een completed by the United States.  Therefore, 
China also urged the United States to complete the ri sk analysis that had been ongoing for some time. 
 
Other concerns 
184. Lack of transparency for certain SPS measures 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 32-33) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/22 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
163. The United States expressed concerns over Chin a's failure to notify nearly 60 regulations 
covering food, forestry and fishery products issued since 2002.  Bu rdensome certification 
requirements for fresh, chilled and frozen aquatic  products were imposed by AQSIQ Decree 31, 
which entered into force on 1 July 2003, but were no t notified to the WTO.  Despite holding bilateral 
consultations with China, no progress had been made on this issue.  The United States urged China to 
comply with its SPS obligations and to notify new re gulations so that Members had an opportunity to 
comment on them. 
164. China stressed that it had notified 213 SPS m easures since its accession and was committed in 
fulfilling its transparency obligations.  The comment period was calculated from the day the 
Secretariat circulated the notification.  There was no obligation to notify AQSIQ Decree 31 as it was 
an operational rule of a corresponding regulation that had already been notified to the WTO, and imposed no new technical requirements.  However, in  the interest of enhanced transparency, Decree 
31 had been notified in August 2003 (G/SPS/N/CHN/22). 
 COSTA RICA CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COSTA RICA Plant Health 230. Phytosanitary requirements on fresh oranges  
Raised by: Nicaragua G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 42  
 
  Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 90-92), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 90-92) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CRI/43 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
165. In October 2005, Nicaragua reported that in  mid-2005 competent authorities from Nicaragua 
and Costa Rica had put in place a bi-national tec hnical team responsible for the prevention and 
eradication of Citrus leprosis, as well as the mainte nance of citrus leprosis-free areas.  The team had 
confirmed the presence of the Citrus leprosis in th e south of Costa Rica and in the north of Nicaragua, 
as well as the Citrus leprosis-free status of south Nicaragua, the region containing commercial citrus 
fruits groves for export.  The risk analysis by Cost a Rica indicated mature fruits were not the pathway 
for the spread of the disease, hence imported fruits, which were mature, did not present any 
phytosanitary risk.  The adoption by Costa Rica of an emergency prohibition on imports from 
Nicaragua was not justified and more trade restri ctive than necessary to maintain Costa Rica's 
appropriate phytosanitary level of protection. 
166. Costa Rica indicated that Nicaragua complied with the requirements as its fresh oranges 
originated from a pest-free area and Costa Rica ha d not prohibited oranges entering from Nicaragua. 
 
CROATIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CROATIA Animal Health 158. Restrictions on pork imports 
Raised by: Slovenia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 203-204) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
167. Slovenia reported that decrees issued in Ma rch by the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture 
shortened the validity dates on veterinary import pe rmits from six to three months.  The reason given 
for this was market disturbances due to oversupply of meat in the Croatian market.  The measure was not notified to the WTO and was in breach of th e WTO Agreements on SPS, Agriculture and Import 
Licensing Procedures.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 43 
 
 
  168. Croatia stated that it had not adopted or implem ented any measures to restrict imports of pork 
meat and products.  As of January, Croatia was de veloping a computerized integrated system for 
veterinary control of border crossings.  This requi red adjustments to the procedures for application 
and issuance of veterinary approvals .  An important element of the new simplified system was that the 
period for issuance of approvals had been shortene d from 30 or 60 days to only 15 days.  Bilateral 
discussions between competent authorities would clarify the situation. 
 
166. Import measures on live animals and meat products 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, pa ras. 28-31), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, 
paras. 132–134) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/416 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
169. Hungary expressed concern with measures taken by Croatia to ban imports of live animals 
and meat products.  The ban, supposedly to provide protection against BSE, entered into force with 
immediate effect and was never notified.  The ba n applied to all meat products, including fish and 
poultry, as well as live animals.  These could only be imported if the exporting country certified that no animal protein had been used as feed.  As there was no scientific justification for the measures and 
since it did not apply to domestic producers, Hungary  considered the ban a disguised restriction on 
international trade.  The European Communiti es expressed support for Hungary's concerns.  The 
European Communities had requested information from Croatia but did not receive any reply. 
170. Croatia maintained that the measure was imposed  to keep its present status as a BSE-free area 
in order to protect its exports of meat products .  The measures taken were in accordance with 
established international rules and with the measur es taken by the European Communities.  Countries 
which had provided the necessary in formation had been exempted fro m the ban, e.g., Bulgaria and 
Romania.  Croatia requested Hungary to submit the necessary information. 
171. In October 2003, Croatia reported that meeti ngs between veterinarians from Hungary and 
Croatia were held to resolve the issue.  The European Communities not ed that the statement made by 
Croatia at the June meeting and circulated in  document G/SPS/GEN/416, th at its measures were 
consistent with EC legislation was inaccurat e.  EC legislation did not prohibit imports. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 44  
 
  CUBA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA Plant Health 105. Restrictions on apples and pears 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2001  (G/SPS/R/25, para. 101) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
172. Argentina expressed concerns that Cuba did not accept cold treatment as a quarantine 
treatment for apples and pears.  Bilateral consultati ons had been held, and Argentina expected further 
information from Cuba on this issue. 
 CZECH REPUBLIC CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC 
Food safety 9. Zero-tolerance for salmone lla in imported poultry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Slovak Republic [See Item 9, page 32] 
 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Plant Health 239. Tolerance levels for so il content on potato tubers 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, pa ras. 17-18), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, 
paras. 33-34) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 45 
 
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
173. In June 2006, Canada stated that it had been  negatively affected by the unacceptably low 
tolerance levels set by the Dominican Republic for soil content on potato tubers  which were ten times 
lower than those indicated in the international sta ndard.  This measure seemed to target Canada as 
other exporters were not subject to the same requi rement, which was impossible to meet and was not 
based on a risk assessment.  Despite numerous efforts at the bilateral level a nd an invitation extended 
to the Dominican Republic to visit the potato produc tion sites, the issue remained unresolved.  Canada 
urged the Dominican Republic to am end its tolerance level to bring it in line with international 
practice. 
174. The Dominican Republic explained that the meas ure was not discriminatory as it applied to 
all countries exporting to the Dominican Republic, where there was a risk of introduction of 
nematodes.  An official communication had been sen t to Canada in this regard and they hoped to 
resolve the issue promptly. 
175. In October 2006, Canada reported that it had held bilateral meetings to discuss Canada's 
concerns with the Dominican Republic requirement s for Canadian potato.  In September 2006, the 
Dominican Republic sent representatives to Canada to get first hand information on Canadian potato 
production, distribution and transportation systems and to take samples for test ing.  At the conclusion 
of the visit, Canada thought they had reached an  agreement on the conditions for Canadian potato to 
be exporter to the Dominican Republic.  Canada reiterated that there had been no agreement on 
acceptable soil tolerance level as a result of misc ommunication of the results of the September 
meeting and indicated their interest to continue th e technical discussion on the issue while hoping that 
the issue could be resolved on the basis of accepta ble international practices for soil tolerance. 
176. The Dominican Republic observed that following  the recommendations of a multidisciplinary 
team of experts working on potato certification a nd working on phytosanitary measures, they had 
agreed on a soil tolerance level of 1g of soil per kg of potato for consumption and 5g of soil per kg of 
seed potato.  Canadian and Dominican Republic expe rts were right and agreed that over the next 
two years the situation was to be carefully monitor and possibly could agreed to increase to the soil 
tolerance level to 85g of soil per kg of potato.  Howe ver, the Dominican Republic agreed with Canada 
that there had been miscommunication and expressed th eir desire to continue monitoring the situation 
while hoping that an understanding could be reached at a bilateral level. 
 
EGYPT 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EGYPT 
Food safety 
77. Restrictions on canned tuna 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2000 (G /SPS/R/19, paras. 103-104) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 46  
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/203 
Solution: Formal consultations requested by Thailand 
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
177. Thailand, acknowledging Egypt's decision to r estrict food imports containing genetically 
modified organisms (GMOs), insisted that Thai canned tuna did not contain soybean oil produced 
from genetically modified plants.  Thailand noted th at it was not possible to identify the origin of 
soybean oil since the final processing stages destr oyed genetic material.  Thailand considered the 
restrictions on Thai canned tuna to be discriminat ory, and asked the Egyptian Government to lift the 
restrictions as soon as possible.  Egypt took note of Thailand's concerns and agreed to report back to 
the Committee in due course. 
 
EL SALVADOR 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR Food safety 
9. Zero-tolerance for salmone lla in imported poultry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Slovak Republic [See Item 9, page 32] 
 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Food safety 
40. Trade restrictions in response to cholera 
Raised by: Tanzania 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 56-57), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, 
paras. 96-99) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/54 
Solution: Partially resolved:  Measures revised 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
178. In March 1998, the European Communities in formed the Committee that it had taken 
safeguard measures with resp ect to imports of fruit, vegetables and fish products in light of a cholera 
outbreak in Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Mozambi que.  The inspection procedures in these countries 
had shown deficiencies, but the European Commun ities planned to consult with them to find  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 47 
 
 
  arrangements by which they could put in force prope r hygiene requirements.  EC member States were 
trying to develop a joint cholera policy based on risk assessment.  The WHO observer did not 
consider the import ban necessary, especially on fish  products which were not consumed in raw form 
in Europe.  He drew attention to the WHO Guid ance on Foundation of National Policy and Control of 
Cholera, and particularly the conclusion in Chapter IX that:  "Although there is a theoretical risk of 
Cholera transmission associated with some food comm odities moving in interna tional trade, this has 
rarely proved significant and authorities should seek m eans of dealing with it other than by applying 
an embargo on importation". 
179. In June 1998, Tanzania reported that the Eu ropean Communities continued to prohibit the 
importation of fresh, frozen and processed fishery products from the four African countries, although 
tests had not found the bacteria concerned.  Ta nzania stressed that the EC ban was having severe 
economic effects on the Tanzanian economy, and th at according to the SPS Agreement, Members 
should help developing countries comply with th eir SPS measures.  The European Communities 
responded that it was now satisfied the necessary gu arantees were in place, and that a new measure 
restoring trade with the four African countries would probably enter into force on 1 July 1998. 
 
47. Measure on establishments operating in the animal feed sector  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, pa ras. 50-56), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, 
paras. 35-36), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/58, G/SPS/GEN/88, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
180. In June 1998, the United States raised its concer ns with regard to an  EC measure which set 
conditions and arrangements for approving and registering establis hments and intermediaries 
operating in the animal feed sector.  The United St ates sought clarification regarding criteria used, 
justification and coverage of the measure and the procedures  involve d, and asked for an update on its 
implementation status. 
181. The European Communities replied that it was putting in place the legislative framework for 
the establishment of a single market in regard to  animal, plant and cons umer health.  It was 
establishing harmonized standards so that products c ould circulate freely within the Community.  The 
European Communities provided an explanation of  the criteria used and risks addressed by the 
framework, and clarified that it applied only to feedi ngstuffs for farm animals, not to pet food.  The 
European Communities clarified that by the e nd of 1998, EC member States must provide the 
Commission with a list of establishments considered  eligible, which could be modified later on.  
Establishments would be inspected by the EC Commission.  The European  Communities considered 
its registration requirements to be flexible and not  very onerous.  Argentina requested a written copy 
of the EC statement. 
182. In September 1998, the United States reported it was encouraged by the EC willingness to 
consult on this draft directive with a view to safe guarding public and animal health while minimizing 
trade disruptions.  The European Communities noted that the new regime was similar to the previous G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 48  
 
  one, but was more flexible in that on-the-spot inspection in third countries was optional.  The 
European Communities assured the United States that  prompt answers would be provided to all 
questions raised. 
183. In July 2001, the United States reported that it did not require or support registration of 
animal feed establishments and considered the issue to still be unresolved (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
 
52. Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 37-38), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/61, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
184. In September 1998, the United States sought cl arification on the EC measure on food and 
food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation.  The United States was taking similar steps towards 
recognizing that this technology could play a role in ensuring the wholesomeness and safety of food, and had sent official comments to the European  Communities.  However, the United States 
emphasized that the list of products provided in an  annex to the EC directive should be expanded to 
cover other food products such as pork, beef, poultry,  fruits and vegetables.  The United States also 
requested explanation of how the approval process for treatment facilities worked.  The European 
Communities indicated that the US suggestions w ould be forwarded to the competent EC services. 
185. In a document introduced in July 2001, the United States reported that two EC directives on 
food irradiation had been adopted in 1999 (G/SPS/G EN/265).  So far, only dried aromatic herbs, 
spices and vegetable seasonings had been included in  the positive list.  One of the directives required 
that the Commission draft a proposal by 31 December 2000.  The Commission had published a 
consultation paper, describing a possible strategy for expanding the positive list.  After considering 
comments, the Commission would submit the paper to  the Council and the European Parliament.  The 
United Stated had sent comments on the consultation pa per in January 2001, requesting that all foods 
which received a favourable opinion from the Scie ntific Committee for Food be included in the 
positive list.  The United States had also requested  information on how additional foods could be 
added to the positive list. 
 
72. Measures regarding canned tuna in oil – Maintained by Belgium 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, paras. 87-88), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
para. 44) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 49 
 
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
186. The Philippines expressed concern regarding a Belgian decision to withdraw from sale 
Philippine canned tuna in oil based  on allegations of contaminatio n with biphenol-A-diglycydyl and 
biphenol-F-diglycydyl.  The European Communities responded that some products had to be withdrawn from sale and offered to pursue the matter  on a bilateral basis with the Philippines.  In 
bilateral discussions, Belgium transmitted, for consid eration by the Philippines, information that in 
Belgium's view provided a basis for its action to withdraw the subject products from sale.  The 
Philippines reiterated its objection to this action, which it considered was taken without sufficient 
legal basis. 
 
89. Import restrictions on soy sauce 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by: Republic of Korea 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  36-39), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 11-
14), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ra. 106), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 134-136), June 2002  (G/SPS/R/27, para. 132) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/100 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
187. In March 2001, Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, raised concerns with an EC regulation which 
set new maximum levels for lead, cadmium, merc ury and 3-MPCD in foodstuffs.  ASEAN believed 
that the EC maximum level of 3-MCPD in soy sauce was too low to be practicable, and constituted an 
unnecessary barrier to trade.  ASEAN asked the European Communities to provide technical 
information in order to reach a mutually satisfactor y solution.  Korea asked to be informed about the 
outcome of bilateral consultations between the Eu ropean Communities and Thailand.  The European 
Communities stated that several of its member States  had detected high levels of 3-MCPD in samples 
of soy sauce.  Recent toxicological studies had i ndicated that the substance acted as a non-genotoxic 
carcinogen in vivo.  The European Communities be lieved that maximum leve ls should be set to 
encourage good manufacturing practices and to prot ect the health of consumers.  A proposed 
Commission Regulation set such limits, and was cu rrently under examination.  Thailand had been 
informed of the 3-MCPD levels reported in so y sauce from one manufacturer, but had not responded. 
188. In July 2001, the European  Communities informed the Co mmittee that the Scientific 
Committee of Food had recently revised its opini on on 3-MCPD in light of new toxicological 
information, concluding that 3-MCPD was not genot oxic in humans.  A tolerable daily intake had 
been set at 2 μg per kg of body weight.  A maximum level fo r 3-MCPD, to take effect in April 2002, 
had been set at 0.02 mg/kg for both hydrolized vegetable protein and soy sauce.  However, in light of the new scientific opinion, the European Communitie s would consider whether the current maximum 
level remained appropriate.  The United States i ndicated that the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 50  
 
  on Food Additives (JECFA) had re-evaluated the safe ty of chlorinated propanols, and concluded that 
a person should not consume more than 120 mg/day of these contaminants.  The Codex representative 
added that the need to establish maximum levels for these contaminants would be considered by 
JECFA in March 2002. 
189. In October 2001, Thailand indicated that it had taken measures to establish maximum 3-
MCPD limits and to modify production processes to  lower rates of contamination; its industry 
expected to be able to meet a 1 mg/kg limit with in one year.  JECFA had set a provisional maximum 
daily threshold level at 2 micrograms/kg of body wei ght per day.  Based on this limit for a person of 
50 kg bodyweight, a safe daily consumption of up to 10 g should be allowable.   However, Thailand 
noted that the limits applied by Members differed widely. 
190. In March 2002, the European Communities repor ted that the Scientific Committee had re-
evaluated the potential toxicity of 3-MCPD, and ha d concluded that the risks were not as high as 
initially believed.  A full evaluation of the toxi city of 3-MCPD was underway, pending receipt of 
additional information;  in particular regarding exposure levels.  The results of this study were 
expected for July 2002, at which time the EC require ment would be re-examined in light of the results 
of this study as well as of the JECFA review. 
191. The representative of Codex noted that the Codex Committee on Food Additives had the 
previous week discussed the subject of chloropropan ols, substances which could occur in hydrolized 
vegetable proteins and soy sauces.  JECFA had determ ined that the level of chloropropanols could be 
controlled if the levels of 3-MCPD were limited, and had developed recommende d daily intake levels.  
On this basis, the Food Additiv es committee was proceeding to develop maximum residue levels for 
3-MCPD for commodities of major trade interest. 
192. In June 2002, the European Communities confir med that 3-MCPD had been re-evaluated and 
found to be carcinogenic but not genotoxic, so the ALARA ("as low as reasonably achievable") principle would no longer be applied.  However, the European Communities was seeking the necessary information on exposure of consumers to 3-MCPD and other chloropropanols so that the 
Scientific Committee could undertake a risk assessment. 
 
94. Directive 2000/42 on pesticide residues 
Raised by: Côte d'Ivoire 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 136-137) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
193. Côte d'Ivoire expressed concern regarding ne w EC maximum residue levels (MRLs) for 
pesticides in fruits and vegetables,  which would affect Côte d'Ivoire 's exports of pineapples, mangoes, 
papayas, cashew nuts, passion fruits and green beans.   Small farmers in Cô te d'Ivoire would be 
affected.  The MRLs did not seem to be consistent, or to be based on a pertinent risk assessment, for 
example in the case of Ethephon.  Technical questi ons posed in April 2001 through different channels 
had remained without answer.  Although technical as sistance for pineapple production was planned, it  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 51 
 
 
  had not been carried out before the entry into for ce of the EC directive.  Côte d'Ivoire requested 
waivers from the EC directive.  Once the planned technical assistance had been carried out, adequate MRLs could be set with the collaboration of Code x.  The European Communities recalled that one 
year ago the Committee had been informed of an EC decision to delay for one year the application of 
a series of MRLs for ACP countries.  The year had now passed, and the directive was being 
implemented.  Special and differential treatment  had not solved the problem.  For discontinued 
substances, the MRLs were set at detection levels ; this was international practice.  The European 
Communities would consider Côte d'Ivoire's request. 
 
95. Legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ) 
Raised by: Israel 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 128-129) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
194. Israel was concerned that legislation being cons idered by the European Parliament would ban 
fungicide residues in fruit juices, although they were considered safe according to Codex standards.  
Israel saw no scientific justification for banning th e use of these fungicides, and believed this would 
create unnecessary trade barriers.  Israel had rai sed both with the European Communities and with 
Germany a problem regarding German law which restricted residues of TBZ and Imazalil in citrus 
juices to such low levels that in effect this constitu ted a ban.  Israel requested a clarification regarding 
the EC position on the European Parliament initiativ e.  The European Communities explained that the 
European Parliament could introduce amendments to  Commission proposals, and that Israel would be 
kept informed of the situation. 
 
106. Regulations on genetically modified food and feed 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Israel, Jordan, Singapore, 
Egypt 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 40-44), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 45-56), April 2003 (G/SPS/ R/29, paras. 84-87), June 2003 
(G/SPS/R/30, para. 168) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/EEC/6 a nd 7, G/SPS/N/EEC/149, G/SPS/N/EEC/150, 
G/SPS/GEN/397, G/SPS/GEN/398, G/SPS/GEN/399 
Solution: Panel established on 29 August 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as resolved:   
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 52  
 
  195. The United States expressed concerns that th e EC proposals on traceability and labelling of 
agricultural biotechnology products had been notified only under th e TBT Agreement and not the SPS 
Agreement, although the proposals made it clear that they were intended to address unforeseen 
adverse effects to human and animal health.  Canada and the United States sought clarification as to whether the draft regulations covered food safety or human health.  Argentina noted that genetically 
modified food did not affect health, and that th e compulsory labelling required by the proposed EC 
regulation was not consistent with  the TBT Agreement.  Argentina sought clarification as to whether 
the labelling requirements extended to pharmaceu tical products for human or animal use. 
196. The European Communities observed that request s to prolong the consultation period had 
been accepted and this period would run until the end of the year.  The main objective of the proposed 
regulations was to ensure that consumers were dul y informed of the products they bought.  Two other 
key issues were traceability and labelling. Th e labelling of pharmaceuticals containing GM 
ingredients was covered by different legislation.  The European Communities stated that discussions 
should continue in the TBT Committee. 
197. In March 2002, the United States noted that the EC measure notified as G/SPS/N/EEC/149, 
would require a lengthy food safety review for all bi otech foods, and for the fi rst time, biotech feeds, 
which would also need to be labelled.  Products al ready authorized for food or feed use within the 
European Union would have to be re-authorized wi thin nine years of their first placement on the 
market.  The stated objective of this regulation w as to protect health, environment and consumers and 
to prevent deceptive practices.  However, the propo sed regulation failed to distinguish the protection 
of health and the environment from perceived consum er desires.  The regulation would be more trade 
restrictive than necessary and could create substa ntial difficulties for countries which imported US 
agricultural products for processing and further expor t, without addressing the identified concerns and 
potential hazards.  The United States suggested that without affordable testing and enforcement, the 
proposed regulation left room for fraud, and the European Commission should examine the feasibility 
of implementing the regulation, and analyze its potential regulatory impact. 
198. The United States further noted that the new EU Food Authority (EFA) would undertake the 
risk assessments for biotech food and feed, and prov ide technical and scientific information.  But the 
European Commission could propose an outcome incons istent with the risk assessment or other safety 
and technical information considered by EFA.  This le ft room for political interference of the type that 
had led to the existing moratorium on the approval  of biotech products.  Furthermore, the EC 
legislation set a "no risk" level which could eff ectively block the regulatory process since no product 
could ever be guaranteed to have "no risk". 
199. Canada believed that these proposed regulations fe ll within the scope of the SPS Agreement, 
and the primary concern of Canada was that cert ain elements of these propo sals lacked the needed 
scientific basis.  Argentina supported the US and Ca nadian statements.  Israel expressed concern with 
the trend of Members' requiring traceability and mandatory labelling for biotech food and feed 
products, a requirement not based on scientific in formation, and hoped that  Members could find less 
trade restrictive measures to address their concerns.  Jordan supported the consideration of the safety 
of GM products on the basis of risk assessment as  provided in the SPS Agreement.  Requirements 
imposed on processed products would result in unjus tified costs that affected the competitiveness of 
products, and resulted in greater restrictions on de veloping countries.  Egypt supported the statements 
of the United States and Jordan.  Singapore request ed the European Communities to take account of 
all the concerns raised to ensure that the implem entation of the regulations did not impose a disguised 
restriction on trade, particularly for countri es which processed and re-exported goods imported from 
the United States. 
200. Chinese Taipei stated that safety assessment of a ll GM products should be based on scientific 
evidence to ensure that the prod ucts were as safe as their conventio nal counterparts.  Members should  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 53 
 
 
  work together in particular to strengthen risk communication.  Chinese Taipei considered that an 
appropriate labelling scheme was necessary to respect  consumers' right to know and to choose, and 
had introduced voluntary labelling in January 2001.  Mandatory labelling would be applied in three 
phases starting in January 2003. 
201. The European Communities recalled that these re gulations had also been notified under the 
TBT Agreement, and that the TBT Committee had held  detailed discussions at the technical level the 
previous week.  The European Communities believed that a large part of these proposals fell within 
the scope of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement,  but had notified these measures also under the SPS 
Agreement because many Members had expressed inte rest in the SPS Committee.  The time-period to 
allow Members to submit comments also in response to the SPS notifications had been extended.  The 
comments received had been very similar to those received in response to the TBT notification, and 
the European Communities subsequently circulat ed its response to comments received about both 
notifications. 
202. The European Communities further reported that the draft regulation had been adopted by the 
EC College of Commissioners and sent to the EU  Parliament and the EC Council for their final 
decisions.  The comments received by the EC Co mmission, as well as the responses to these, would 
be provided to the EC member States, the EC C ouncil and Parliament.  It was unclear how long the 
process would take and when any decisions might be made.  The European Communities noted that 
the EFA would be a scientific body with responsibility  to do independent risk assessment;  its advice 
would be sent to the EC Commission and Council for the appropriate risk management decisions.  This procedure was consistent with the Codex gui delines, since it was not appropriate for the risk 
assessment body to also make the risk management decisions. 
203. In April 2003, the United States recalled its previous criticisms that the EC biotechnology 
policies breached both EC laws and WTO rules.  By blocking imports on an unscientific basis, the 
European Communities was interfering with the use of safe food products that could stem global 
hunger, improve nutrition and benefit the environment.  Canada an d Argentina echoed the concerns of 
the United States.  Australia stated it shared many  of the concerns raised by the United States and 
Canada with regard to the lack of science based decision-making. 
204. The European Communities reported that on 17 March 2003, the Council of Ministers 
adopted a common position on biotechnology approval,  labelling and traceability and the legislative 
proposals had now returned to the European Par liament for a second reading under the co-decision 
procedures.  The second reading should be concluded at the beginning of July 2003, which implied 
that the proposals should be adopted before th e end of 2003.  Once approved, the labelling and 
traceability proposals should make it possible for th e moratorium on biotechnology approvals to be 
lifted since EC member States had imposed the moratorium in the absence of a clear regulation on traceability and labelling. 
205. The European Communities also indicated th at the biotechnology approval procedure 
envisaged in Directive 2001/18 was now operational and the EU Scientific Committee had given its 
opinion as to the procedure necessary to conduct a risk assessment.  The opinion was available on the 
internet.  Nineteen new or revised submissions had been received since the start of 2003 and the 
assessments had begun in accordance with the pr ovisions of the Directive.  The European 
Commission was awaiting comments from the Scientific Committee on the risk assessments.  The outcome of the risk assessments would depend on the quality and conformity of the scientific data 
being submitted to determine the effects of GMOs on human health and the environment. 
206. In June 2003, the United States, Canada and Ar gentina reported they had held consultations 
with the European Communities under the dispute settlement procedures on 19 June 2003, and were 
now considering further actions. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 54  
 
   
117. Traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and food and feed 
Raised by: Argentina, Canada, United States 
Supported by: Australia 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ras. 57-62), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras.95-96), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 88-90), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 43-47) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/150, G/SPS/N/EEC/149, G/SPS/GEN/354, G/SPS/GEN/337 
and 338 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
207. The United States specified that the EC traceability  requirement was to apply to all biotech 
food and feed products at all stages of placing the product on the market.  The stated objective was to facilitate control of labelling claims, environmenta l monitoring and control of the product.  Food 
processors would be obliged to maintain specific in formation at each stage of placing the product on 
the market, including details as to whether the product contained or was produced from biotech products.  As a general rule, if a product contained ingredients cons isting of biotech products or 
produced from biotech events, these must be identifie d.  This included prod ucts made from but not 
containing biotech products, such as soybean oil.  The United States believed that this proposal would 
be expensive to implement, but would not be enfo rceable nor would it achieve its stated objectives. 
208. The United States was further concerned that the me asure was not targeted at health risks, and 
applied to products already approved for use within  the European Communiti es.  Traceback systems 
for food safety had been effectively used to reca ll food in the United States in response to health 
problems, based on batch and lot numbers on packag es.  However, the proposed traceability system 
would be applied across-the-board to products w hose safety had already b een assessed.  Before 
adopting the measure the United States urged the European Commission to as sess the feasibility of 
applying the measure reliably and accurately;  consid er less trade restrictive means to achieve the 
objectives and evaluate the regulatory impact of the proposal. 
209. Australia indicated that it had submitted detailed written comments that questioned the 
scientific basis for the EC measures, the international standards to be used, and the nature of the risk 
assessment underpinning the EC measures.  Australia also questioned whether a less trade-restrictive 
measure could be used, and why the traceability system  for GM foods differed substantially from that 
for other foods.  Argentina shared the concer ns raised by the United States and Australia. 
210. Norway indicated doubts as to whether the SPS Agreement was relevant to the issue of 
GMOs and added that Norway strongly believed th at labelling and traceability were not contrary to 
WTO obligations.  The EC regulations took account of the Codex, the Cartagena Protocol and the 
OECD guidelines.  According to the Codex guide lines, food labelling should be used to avoid 
misleading or confusing the consumer with regard to the true nature of a food.  Consumers' distrust in 
food products would be greater if labelling and traceab ility were not required.  Norway believed that 
the EC measure addressed a legitimate objective that was not excessive in relation to its purpose.  Cyprus stated his country's support of the EC  position regarding information to consumers.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 55 
 
 
  211. The European Communities stated that all co mments would be considered and communicated 
to the appropriate bodies.  Current labelling re quirements in the European Communities required 
information on ingredients included in  food products;  all that was a dded in terms of labelling was to 
ensure the inclusion of GM products within the ge neral requirements.  There were four objectives of 
traceability:  (1) to recall products in case of an unfor eseen problem;  (2) to monitor potential risks for 
the environment;  (3) to control th e accuracy of information provided on  the label;  and (4) to inform 
consumers about what they ate and to avoid deceptiv e practices.  The EC Commission considered that 
these four objectives were primarily related to the TBT Agreement, and had notified this proposal to 
the SPS Agreement only for transparency. 
212. Canada observed that one of the stated objectiv es of the proposed regulation was to provide a 
high level of protection of human health.  Canada  accepted that consumers had the right to know 
many things, but found troublesome that these re gulations focused on products made from GM 
products but not on products made with GM pro cessing aids, even when there might be traces of the 
processing aids left in the product.  Several industries in Europe used GM processing aids.  The selective focus was also troubling in  that consumers did not need to  be informed if products were 
derived from mutagenesis, another form of genetic alteration.  The focus of the EC regulations was 
overly specific and selective.  Furthermore, the ma ndatory nature of the tr aceability system created 
problems especially for enforcement.  Canada noted that  no international standard existed in this area;  
the Biosafety Protocol was not yet in effect and ne ither it nor the OECD guidelines were referred to in 
the SPS Agreement.  Canada looked forward to a sci entific assessment of the needs, challenges and 
benefits of the proposed mandatory traceability system .  In November 2002, Argentina drew attention 
to the 21 questions for which his country w as seeking a written response from the European 
Communities (G/SPS/GEN/354).  Argentina enquired as to whether the latest version notified by the 
European Communities included the amendments made  by the European Parliament.  The European 
Communities noted that they had received the ques tions from Argentina at a late date, and would 
provide answers to the questions in writing.  Th e European Communities usually notified a draft text 
to the WTO to allow Members enough time to co mment while the proposed regulation was being 
circulated in the Parliament and Council.  Di scussions were still underway in these two bodies and as 
soon as a final regulation was adopted it would be notified to the SPS Co mmittee for information. 
213. In April 2003, Argentina enquired whether th e European Communities were in a position to 
answer specific questions it had raised in the last Committee meeting on the proposed traceability and 
labelling legislation.  The European Communities responded that the additional questions submitted 
by Argentina were being studied and that a reply,  based on the new version of the two legislative 
proposals, was being finalized.  The European Co mmunities also stated that detailed answers had 
already been given to many questions raised by  Argentina in documents G/SPS/GEN/337 and 338. 
214. In March 2004, the United States noted that the EC rules on traceability and labelling of 
genetically modified organisms and on food and feed would come into effect in April 2004 but many 
questions and uncertainties remained.  The Euro pean Communities were requested to delay the 
implementation and enforcement of the regulati ons until the implementing guidance on sampling and 
testing was also issued.  Canada questioned the scien tific justification of the regulations and expressed 
concern that burdensome documentation and other requirements were placed on products based upon 
their production method.  The traceability and la belling requirements were ambiguous given the 
absence of segregation systems and of internati onally accepted testing methodologies to validate the 
presence of genetically modified foods.  Australia requested that the Europ ean Communities consider 
less trade-restrictive alternatives. 
215. The European Communities explained that EC regulation 1830/2003 had been adopted on 
22 September 2003.  The measure was considered mo re of a TBT issue but was notified to the SPS 
Committee at the request of sever al Members.  The regulation supported EC consumer freedom to 
choose or avoid products derived from biotechnol ogy and provided a harmonized framework that G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 56  
 
  encouraged efficient functioning of internal mark ets.  The regulation also allowed for the rapid 
withdrawal of products of risk to the health of consumers, animals, and the environment from the EC 
market. 
 
130. Restrictions on shellfish 
Raised by: Indonesia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras. 127-128), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 183-184) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
216. In June 2002, Indonesia raised concerns rega rding an EC prohibition on shellfish from 
Indonesia due to biotoxic residues that had been app lied for two years.  The three gulfs in Indonesia 
which were not free of biotoxins were closed to shellfish fishing.  Indonesia had responded to a 
questionnaire from the European Communities and was waiting for the European Communities to 
send an inspection team. 
217. The European Communities indicated that given th e high risks associated with shellfish, it 
accepted products only from countries with an appr oved sanitary programme which included control 
procedures for the maritime production area.  The information provided by Indonesia had given the 
impression that controls were not mandatory, a nd in March 2001 the European Communities had sent 
a further questionnaire.  The European Communiti es indicated that as soon as the reply to the 
questionnaire was received, an EC evaluation team would visit Indonesia. 
218. In November 2002, Indonesia reported that an EC inspection team had visited Indonesia in 
October 2002.  Indonesia was of the view that the resolution of the problem would have a very 
positive effect on the fish industry in Indonesia, esp ecially at the production level.  The European 
Communities commended Indonesia for all the efforts th at the country had made to meet the safety 
requirements set out in EC legislation, and hoped that further progress would permit resolution of the 
problem. 
 
131. Pesticide and antibiotic limits in honey (Directive 96/23) 
Raised by: Cuba 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27/Corr.1,  paras. 130), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
para. 178) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 57 
 
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
219. Cuba indicated that it had sought bilateral c onsultations with the European Communities on 
pesticide residues in honey.  Th e European Communities confirmed that it was examining a plan 
submitted by Cuba for residue analysis, and would continue to pursue this bilaterally. 
220. In November 2002, Cuba reported that progress ha d been made in bilate ral consultations with 
the European Communities on regulation EC 96/93  setting out residue limits for imported honey. 
 
144. Restrictions on the importation of fruits and fruit juices 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: Argentina, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Uruguay 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 28-31), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
para. 211), June 2003 (G/ SPS/R/30, paras. 164-165) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/355, G/SPS/N/EEC/160 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
221. Brazil raised concerns regarding the Eur opean Communities Directive 2002/71/CE, published 
on 19 August 2002, which established new maximum le vels for dimethoate residues in and on cereals, 
foodstuffs of animal origin and cer tain products of plant origin, incl uding fruit and vegetables.  Brazil 
noted that the EC directive would have the effect  of banning Brazilian orange juice from the European 
market and requested the European Communities to  review the directive, taking into account all 
scientific information available.  Bilateral discussi ons held on the previous day had been fruitful and 
Brazil requested a copy of the EC's scientific studies as soon as possible.  Brazil noted that the issue 
of MRLs for dimethoate would be reconsidered by Codex at its m eeting in June 2003, and requested 
the European Communities to suspend the implem entation of this directive pending to a full 
assessment of the situation.  Brazil also request ed the European Communities not to apply the same 
approach in the re-evaluation of 320 active substa nces that was now underway.  Argentina, Bolivia, 
Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Urugua y supported the arguments made by Brazil, in 
particular, the need for scientific justificati on for maximum residue levels (MRLs), and expressed 
concern regarding the implications for developing country exports. 
222. The European Communities stated that the docum ent put forward by Brazil had not yet been 
discussed in Brussels.  Dimethoate was already under evaluation by the European Communities and 
was one of the several hundred plant protection produ cts which was being reas sessed for its safety to 
the environment, animal and public health.  The de cision to establish a limit of analytical detection 
had not been lightly taken, but the scientific evid ence suggested that the existing MRL was inadequate 
to provide for an appropriate level of health pr otection.  A number of years ago a recommendation 
had been made to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues to withdraw the MRL for dimethoate.  
Under the circumstances the European Communi ties had considered it necessary to adopt this G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 58  
 
  measure, although this was not a popular decision b ecause this substance was used by a range of EC 
growers of citrus and other fruit products, and they  were being obliged to withdraw its use.  The 
measure had been notified (G/SPS/N/EEC/160) and th at comments had been received and taken into 
account from a number of countries, including Brazil.  The fears expressed by several countries over the impact of the ongoing evaluation of a range of  other active substances would be communicated to 
the appropriate authorities. 
223. In April 2003, Brazil stated that it looked forw ard to a receiving a copy of the EC scientific 
studies that would serve as the basis for the new European regulation setting MRLs for dimethoate. 
224. In June 2003, Brazil noted that a shipment of  Brazilian apples had been rejected in Sweden 
and that this was one example of how it would be a ffected by the new MRLs.  The burden of proof for 
justification of the new measures was on the European Communities and its present approach was not 
in accordance with the principles for special and di fferential treatment.  China supported the concerns 
of Brazil.  The European Communities stated that bilateral consultations had been held with Brazil 
and hoped that the problem would be resolved soon.  The underlying problem was that many 
pesticides and chemical products which were in us e had never been properly evaluated.  Where no 
toxicological data existed, the European Communiti es would use the level of detection.  For products 
for which data was provided, the European Comm unities would proceed to establish an appropriate 
maximum residue level. 
 
168. Maximum levels for aflatoxins in corn and sampling contaminants in food 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, pa ras. 32-33), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, 
paras. 52-53) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
225. Argentina reported that consultations between its authorities and the European Communities 
had taken place on 2 July concerning EC Regulati on 257/02 which imposed new maximum levels for 
aflatoxins in maize.  Argentina considered th e new measures to be scientifically unfounded and 
requested the European Communities to consider less  trade restrictive measures and the possibility of 
special and differential treatment.  The European  Communities noted that there were considerable 
health problems with aflatoxins and the difficultie s of establishing an appropriate limit.  The new 
regulation would be notified to the Committee before  it was applied and interested trading partners 
would have the opportunity to present their concerns  and objections.  In response to a question from 
Egypt, the European Communities clarified that  the new measure would apply only to maize. 
226. In October 2003, Argentina stated that the MRL for aflatoxin depended on the intended use of 
products and the levels were not consistent w ith international recommendations nor based on 
scientific evidence.  However, the new regulation modi fied the MRL for corn and was less restrictive.  
Argentina requested a review of the sampling levels  along with the scientific justification to support 
the measure.  The European Comm unities stated that it had conducted  scientific research to support  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 59 
 
 
  the MRLs adopted for corn and that the levels c ould be met through good agriculture practice.  The 
MRL for corn was established to protect consumer health. 
 
169. EC proposed regulation on maximum residue levels of pesticides  
Raised by: Argentina, China 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Chin a, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Mexico, 
Paraguay, Uruguay 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, pa ras. 75-77), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 76-79) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/196 and Add.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
227. China indicated that it was highly concerned with the approach taken by the European 
Communities on maximum residue levels in plant and animal products and had submitted comments 
on the notification.  China believed that the new rules were not in compliance with the SPS 
Agreement and requested information on the risk assess ment undertaken by the EC.  Brazil noted that 
it had previously raised similar concerns and requested a three year postponement of the measure.  
Chile expressed support for the position taken by Ch ina and Brazil and also requested information on 
the risk analysis and the scientific  basis for the maximum residue levels.  Brazil queried whether, for 
those pesticides where there was no scientific evid ence, a precautionary approach would be used. 
228. The European Communities replied that the draf t rule replaced and simplified four existing 
directives.  The new rule was scheduled to enter into force on 1 January 2005 and would lead to a 
harmonization of maximum residue levels in the European Communities.  The transitional process 
would be very long and additiona l comments could still be made.  The objective was to examine 325 
substances in order to update the available informat ion and to set maximum re sidue limits since zero 
level was difficult to achieve.  The new rule would not lead to a withdrawal of given authorizations 
except for use within the European Communities.  Imports from third countries would not be automatically banned, but could be accepted on the basis of maximum residue limits when it could be 
shown that these limits were sufficient to protect health.  Members and the Codex Alimentarius were 
invited to submit comments on which levels of  residues might be considered as acceptable. 
229. In October 2004, Argentina raised concerns  over EC notification G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add 1. 
The proposed rule would seriously affect devel oping countries' agri-food exports.  Of particular 
concern was the EC default level of zero for maxi mum residue limits set for products that had not 
being authorized or when data was unavailable to  demonstrate the safety of the residues.  This 
requirement was implemented for economic reasons rather than for food safety considerations.  
Moreover, many of the maximum residue limits se t by Codex had not been accepted by the European 
Communities, especially those set before 1990.  Th e European Communities should provide scientific 
justification for deviations from international standa rds as well as consider the economic impact of the 
implementation of its proposed regulation on trading partners. 
230. ASEAN, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colo mbia, Cuba, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, and 
Uruguay echoed the concerns raised by Argentina.   Chile and Cuba asked what methodology was 
used in setting the default detection limit.  The Philippines, on behalf of ASEAN countries, supported G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 60  
 
  the statement made by Argentina and asked why th e European Communities had not adopted relevant 
Codex standards.  The European Communities shoul d provide a risk assessment if a higher level of 
protection than that achieved by the relevant Code x standards was adopted.  Furthermore, developing 
countries lacked the technological and analytical cap ability to comply with the new default approach 
and this could have adverse ec onomic implications for them. 
231. The European Communities explained that a listing of all available risk assessment 
documents on approved MRLs had been made, in cluding those MRLs for pesticides approved many 
years ago.  Some of the risk assessments were no longer relevant today and so a reassessment of the 
pesticides was needed.  The industry was requested to  supply the relevant scientific and technical data 
to carry out these risk assessments.  However, th e industry was no longer interested in marketing 
some of the older pesticides and were not keen to fund research.  Therefore, these pesticides were 
withdrawn from the list and a residue default leve l was set for them.  The European Communities 
would, however, allow the use of these pesticides if furnished with relevant risk assessments from 
interested trading partners.  Argentina was request ed to provide its questions in writing so that 
detailed written replies could be communicated to all interested Members. 
 
175. Notification on food and feed controls 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 39-41) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/191 and Add.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
232. The United States stated that the notified me asure would establish an extensive series of 
official controls on feed and food to be implemente d by 1 January 2005.  EC member States' control 
systems would be harmonized, integrating specific c ontrols at all stages of production in all food and 
feed sectors.  "Control plans" from exporting count ries would have to be submitted annually to the 
European Communities.  All exporting countries  would have to demonstrate compliance or 
equivalence to the EC food safety measures for all products to be expor ted as a precondition for 
market access.  Control plans required informati on on all legislation, organization of competent 
authorities, training of staff, resources available and assurance of equivalence of domestic safety 
measures.  While the United States agreed this appr oach was appropriate for high risk products such 
as meat and poultry, it felt that this level of risk management was not appropriate for other types of 
food for which any identified risks were generally quite low. 
233. Canada shared the concerns raised by the United States and noted that it had recently 
submitted comments to the European Communities.  Canada sought more info rmation regarding the 
requirements for non-EC countries. 
234. The European Communities explained that the regulation should facilitate conformity of 
imported food with EC health standards and pr inciples for checking food stuffs.  Written comments 
received by the 27 July 2003 deadline would be cons idered by the EC Enquiry Point and Council of 
Ministers.  As for the control plans, much of the requested information was already available on 
internet sites, i.e., USDA and FDA.  The regul ation, which was based on Codex recommendations,  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 61 
 
 
  would facilitate trade through more transparency and the exchange of information on controls or 
checks for third countries. 
 
176. Notification on maximum tolerance levels  for Ocratoxin A in coffee – Maintained by 
Germany 
Raised by: Colombia, Papua New Guinea 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, 
El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 47-49), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras.34-39) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/DEU/9 a nd Add.1, G/SPS/GEN/434, G/SPS/GEN/470 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
235. Colombia stated that on 17 June 2003, German y had notified a draft regulation for MRLs for 
ocratoxin in products, including soluble and roasted coffee.  In September 2003, the application of the 
measure had been postponed until December 2 003.  Colombia believed that the MRL was 
disproportionate to the risks and that the scientif ic evidence regarding risk s to human health was 
inconclusive.  The economic losses could be signi ficant for Colombia as it exported 1.7 million bags 
of coffee to Germany, which was equivalent to 17 per cent of its total coffee exports.  The testing 
could result in 6 per cent of all coffee entering Ge rmany from Colombia being rejected.  Colombia 
questioned the relationship between th is measure and the EC regulations. 
236. Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemal a, Mexico and Peru shared the concerns 
expressed by Colombia.  Brazil noted that the high er MRL for soluble product compared to the 
roasted coffee was unusual, as normally products for direct consumption had lower levels of MRLs. 
237. The European Communities explained that each EC  member State retained the right to adopt 
national legislation for the protection of human health  when no EC standard existed.  Since there was 
no MRL Ocratoxin A for coffee in the European  Communities, Germany could establish its own 
MRLs.  The measure was based on new scientific  evidence.  The European Commission had 
organized a meeting between Colombian and German toxicology experts, and replies to Colombia's 
questions would be circulated to all Members shortly. 
238. In March 2004, Papua New Guinea informed the Committee that it had submitted comments 
on Germany's measures on coffee in G/SPS/GEN/470.  Colombia stated that written responses to its 
questions outlined in G/SPS/GEN/434 had not been  provided by the European Communities.  
Germany had since informed Colombia of the a pproval of the Bundesrat Directive 713/03 by the 
Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Ag riculture.  Directive 713/03 changed the existing 
regulation of the MRLs for Ocratoxin A (OTA) in roasted and soluble coffee in Germany.  Germany 
also indicated that the European Communities w ould be notifying a similar measure for roasted, 
soluble and green coffee.  Colomb ia was concerned about the impact of the measure on the marketing 
of coffee in Europe and requested the Eur opean Communities to respond to its questions. 
239. Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Re public, El Salvador, Ecuador, Guatemala, 
India, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Peru shared the conc erns raised by Papua New Guinea and Colombia.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 62  
 
  Germany's MRLs for OTA in coffee were discriminat ory and scientifically unjustified.  Germany was 
requested to answer the questions previously posed by Colombia and to take into consideration the 
special needs of coffee exporting countries. 
240. Codex explained that OTA, a mycotoxin contamin ant, had been a standing agenda item of the 
Codex Committee for Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) since its 23
rd session in 
March 1991.  A risk assessment of the conseq uences of establishing a maximum level of 
5 micrograms/kg or 20 micrograms/kg for OTA in cereals and cereal products had been conducted 
based on food consumption data for European type di ets.  Cereals and wine were identified as major 
dietary contributors of the overall intake of OTA, while coffee and grape juice were considered minor 
contributors.  The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Comm ittee on Food Additives and Contaminants (JECFA) 
retained the previously established Provisional Tole rable Weekly Intake of 100 nanograms/kg of body 
weight and recommended that overall contamination of foods, especially cereals, should be lowered 
by appropriate agriculture, storage and processing pr actices.  The conclusion of the JECFA evaluation 
was available from WHO as Technical Report Series  906.  CCFAC would consider draft maximum 
levels for OTA in cereals at its 36th Session. 
241. The European Communities stated  that Colombia's questions were still under consideration 
by EC authorities and that a draft Codex standard for OTA levels in cereals was under discussion.  MRLs for OTA had been established within the European Communities for a number of foods, but 
not for coffee.  Germany therefore had the right to establish maximum OTA levels for coffee.  The 
European Communities had already determined MR Ls for OTA in cereals and derivative products 
under EC Directive 466/2001, later modified by Dir ective 472/2002.  As for beer, OTA levels were 
regulated indirectly by the maximum OTA limits se t on barley.  OTA levels for roasted and soluble 
coffee, wine, certain dried fruits and fruit juices w ould be determined by the end of 2004 and notified 
to the WTO in due course.  EC Directive 2002/26 established the sampling methods and criteria used 
for the analysis of OTA levels in foods.  The Eur opean Communities also stat ed that Germany had not 
rejected shipments of Colombian coffe e due to excessive levels of OTA. 
 
191. Maximum residue levels for pesticides on food 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 49-51) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/243 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
242. China raised concerns that the maximum resi due limits (MRLs) notified in G/SPS/N/EEC/236 
and 237 were several times lower than the MRLs proposed by other developed countries and by the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission.  The European Co mmunities were requested to provide scientific 
justification for its measures or modify the MRLs a ccording to relevant international standards.  In 
addition, the European Communities were requested to extend the time period for implementation of 
the measure from the date of adoption to one year and provide China with the testing methods for the 
concerned MRLs.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 63 
 
 
  243. The European Communities stated that it was prepared to address China's concerns on 
notification G/SPS/N/EEC/243, as indicated in the dr aft agenda, but was not prepared to provide 
specific answers to China's concerns on the notif ications G/SPS/N/EEC/236 a nd 237.  However, a 
detailed written reply would be sent to China shortl y.  The European Communities clarified that the 
proposed date of entry into force in notif ications G/SPS/N/EEC/236 and 237 should read 
19 January 2005 instead of 19 January 2004.  Furthe rmore, some of the Codex MRLs mentioned by 
China were proposed for revocation at the next meet ing of the Codex Alimenta rius Commission.  EC 
MRLs for pesticide quantities in foodstuffs were higher than international standards in four cases:  
(1) phyto pharmaceutical products which did not lead to detectable levels of pesticides residues in 
foodstuffs;  (2) unauthorized use of the pesticides;  (3) EC authorizations which were  unsupported by 
technical and scientific evidence;   and (4) residues present in imported foods without sufficient 
scientific evidence indicating their food safety.  In  this case, the European Communities undertook its 
own assessment and was also willing to consid er data submitted by the exporting country. 
 
197. EC regulation on Ocratoxin A in coffee 
Raised by: Colombia 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Kenya, Peru 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as. 61-67), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, 
paras 168-170) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/475, G/SPS/GEN/490, G/SPS/GEN/515, G/SPS/R/33 
(paras. 34-39), G/SPS/N/EEC/247, G/SPS/N/EEC/247/Add.2. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
244. In October 2004, Colombia reported that in May 2004, the European Communities had 
responded to Colombia's questions regarding Germ any's measures on Ocratoxin A (OTA) in roasted 
and soluble coffee (see also item 176), explaining th at Germany was able to set maximum levels OTA 
in coffee as harmonized EC standards were not yet established (G/SPS/GEN/490).  On 1 September 2004, the European Communities issued G/SPS/N/EEC/247, notifying Members of the EC proposal to establish levels for OTA in roasted and soluble coffee. 
245. Colombia continued to be concerned about th e impact of the measures on the marketing of 
coffee in Europe and had raised several questi ons as outlined in G/SPS/GEN/515.  The European 
Communities were asked to explain why OTA levels were set for coffee when coffee contributed only 
8 per cent of the intake of OTA in the European di et compared with cereals and cereal products which 
contributed 50 per cent of the intake of OTA.  Scie ntific justification for the levels of OTA set for 
coffee was requested from the Europ ean Communities, as well as an explanation of the method used 
to determine the OTA levels.  The European Comm unities were also requested to explain why the 
OTA levels for coffee and cereals and cereal products  were the same when the intake of OTA was 
higher in cereals and cereal products than in coffee.   Moreover, if the OTA levels for beer were 
indirectly controlled by its main input, malt, why were not the OTA levels for soluble coffee 
indirectly controlled by its main input, roasted coff ee.  Finally, the European Communities were asked 
to explain why there was a need to protect public  health with regards to coffee and not beer.  
Colombia suggested that the European Communitie s consult studies on OTA toxicology as a starting 
point in establishing maximum OTA levels in green  coffee.  The entire production chain would need G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 64  
 
  to be regulated when establishing maximum levels of OTA for green coffee which would be both 
impractical and counterproductive as additional infrastructure and stor age facilities would be needed.  
Furthermore, the risks of formation of mycotoxins were increased during prolonged periods of storage 
due to the condensation and re-hum idification process in the beans.  OTA levels should not be set 
until there was scientific justification.  The Codex Al imentarius was requested to consider the issue of 
maximum levels of OTA in coffee in the join t FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 
(JECFA). 
246. Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic , Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Kenya 
and Peru supported the statements made by Colombia  and requested a copy of the EC response to the 
questions posed by Colombia.  Chile stated that  the Committee should include this issue under the 
procedure to monitor the use of international standards. 
247. The Codex Alimentarius reported that little pr ogress had been made on this issue in Codex 
since the March meeting of the SPS Committee.  Codex had not established Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for green and roasted coffee but ha d been working to establish MRLs in cereals for 
several years.  However, this was still at the ela boration stage due to the lack of consensus on the 
numerical limits.  The Codex Committee for F ood Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) had 
requested JECFA to include the ri sk assessments on OTA for evaluation by 2006.  At the last meeting 
of the CCFAC, a suggestion was made to include new work in Codex on the development of a code of 
practice to reduce mycotoxin contamination in coffee and cocoa.  This proposal will be discussed at 
the next CCFAC meeting in April 2005. 
248. The European Communities explained that once EC harmonized standard s were established, 
national standards ceased to be effective.  From the perspective of the exporting country, the EC 
harmonized standards had the advantage of being lo wer than the national standards of many member 
States.  The responses to Colombia's questions w ould be made available through the Secretariat and 
the European Commission's websit e contained information on the methodology used to determine the 
level of OTA in coffee.  The EC draft regulati on covered ground and roasted coffee but not green and 
soluble coffee.  MRLs for OTA had already been  established for grains and its by-products and 
raisins.  Furthermore, MRLs for OTA for wine a nd wine based beverages had been proposed.  While 
studies had concluded that cereals and cereal-based products were the main sources of consumer 
exposure to OTA, wine, grape juice and roasted an d soluble coffee also contributed significantly to 
consumer exposure.  The European Communities would reassess its decision on the basis of the 
results of the toxicology studies on OTA that would be available in 2006. 
249. In June 2005, Colombia raised concerns regarding the adoption of EC regulation 
No. 123/2005 on maximum OTA levels in coffee, notified as G/SPS/N/EEC/247/Add.2.  Colombia 
had commented on previous notifications fro m the European Communities and from Germany 
(G/SPS/N/DEU/9) on this subject.  The European Co mmunities had adopted more flexible levels than 
those previously established by Germany.  However,  the adopted regulation foresaw a revision of the 
maximum levels for certain products by 30 June 2006 , at which time the est ablishment of a maximum 
level for OTA in green coffee would be considered .  This was of concern to Colombia because the 
application of maximum ochratoxin levels for roaste d and soluble coffee already implied the indirect 
application of a maximum level for green coffee.  The establishment of a maximum level for green 
coffee would regulate the entire production chain, unlike for other products covered by the same 
notified measure.  According to Colombia, given the large amounts of green coffee arriving every day 
in European ports, additional infrastructure would be needed to store the coffee during testing.  
Furthermore, during the testing process, the green coffee could undergo condensation and re-
humidification processes, which were among the principal risk factors for mycotoxins.  Colombia was willing to work with the European Communiti es and share progress made regarding preventive 
measures, which should be taken in to account in risk assessments.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 65 
 
 
  250. Chile identified similar concerns and sought in formation on maximum ochratoxin levels for 
wine, which faced a similar situation. 
251. The European Communities explained that th e measures introduced represented a harmonized 
system for imports into the European Communities that was advantageous for exporting countries, 
since previously the 25 member States had ha d individual requirements.  These individual 
requirements had been far more demanding than the harmonized levels now est ablished.  He invited 
Colombia to contact the European  Communities to discuss the details. 
 
198. EC regulation on aflatoxins and Ocratoxin A in foods for infants and young children 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 68-69) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
252. China raised concerns over EC notificati on G/SPS/N/EEC/223 and adde ndum on aflatoxins 
and OTA in foods for infants and young children.  Studies conducted by JEFCA concluded that the 
acceptable level of risk was the same when the level of aflatoxin B1 was reduced from 20 to 10 mg/kg and when the level of aflatoxin M1 was reduced from 0.5 to 0.05 mg/kg.  Any further reductions of 
the levels of aflatoxins B1 a nd M1 would have no significant impact on public health safety.  
Furthermore, JECFA, in its 37
th Session, had established a weekly inta ke of OTA of 112 mg/kg.  This 
minimum intake was subsequently lowered to 100 mg/kg at the 44th Session of JECFA and remained 
unchanged in the 56th Session based on results of risk assessments carried out on OTA levels in 
cereals and cereal based products.  The European Communities was requested to provide scientific 
justification for its measures and to consider th e impact of the measures on international trade. 
253. The European Communities stat ed that the EC regulation amending Commission regulation 
466/2001 concerning aflatoxins and OTA in foods for infants and young children applied to products placed in EC markets and was effective from 1 N ovember 2004.  Although China had not submitted 
comments during the comment period, China's comme nts would be taken into account and a written 
response would be provided.  The JECFA studies refe renced above were based on intake levels of 
adults, rather then on intake levels of infants.  The European Communities had therefore considered it 
necessary to establish maximum levels of aflatoxi ns of B1, M1 and OTA for infants and young 
children.  These maximum levels were achievable and substantiated by data.  Furthermore, they had 
little trade implications, as finished foods for infants and young children were not traded in significant 
amounts. 
 207. Directives on residual pesticide tol erance and inspection methods for tea 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: India G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 66  
 
  Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 22-24) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
254. In March 2005, China recalled that in July 2001, the European Communities had issued a 
directive on residual pesticide tolerance and insp ection methods for tea in which the EC maximum 
residue limits (MRLs) for seven types of pesticides were higher than those of the Codex standards.  
When previously discussing that issue bilaterally, China had unsuccessfully requested the scientific 
evidence and risk assessments justifying these MR Ls.  China requested that the European 
Communities apply its detection method for residues on diluted tea as opposed to dry tea leaves, in which pesticide levels were much higher. 
255. India expressed concerns that tea was being si ngled out for rigid residual limits while other 
competing products consumed in larger quantiti es in European Communities were not affected. 
256. The European Communities clarified that the cu rrent regulation on MRLs for pesticides was a 
combination of EC and member States MRLs.  The European Communities was in the process of 
adopting a new regulation on MRLs for pesticides in all food and feedstuffs that would harmonize all 
EC member states' national legislation and woul d likely enter into force in mid 2006.  The EC 
inspection methods for tea were based on the existin g Codex methods.  Regarding India's concern, the 
European Communities did not intend to discriminate against tea in relation with any other beverage. 
 
208. Food and feed hygiene rules 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Jamaica, United States 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 15-18) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/539 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
257. Canada sought clarifications from the Europ ean Communities on the requirements that would 
apply to third countries when the new food and feed  hygiene rules come into force on 1 January 2006 
(Regulations 852/2004, 853/2004 a nd 854/2004).  Canada further invited the European Communities 
to solicit comments from third countri es sufficiently in advance of the implementation date so that the 
comments could be incorporated into the final measu res.  The United State encouraged the European 
Communities to provide more formal explanations of  the nature and scope of the rules applying to 
exporting countries.  Jamaica agreed with Cana da and United States on the need for further 
clarifications from the European Communities. 
258. The European Communities recalled that a docum ent clarifying the traceability provisions of 
the new body of legislation had been circulated in February 2005 (G/SPS/GEN/539).  This document  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 67 
 
 
  explained that the aim of traceability provisions we re intended to identify each link in the chain of 
supply in the event of product recalls.  A seminar ope n to all third countries would be held in Brussels 
to explain the consequences of the entry into  force of the food and feed hygiene rules. 
 
219. EurepGAP requirements for bananas 
Raised by: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 
Supported by: Argentina, Belize, Cuba, Domini ca, Ecuador, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, 
Mexico, Peru, South Africa, Egypt 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1,  paras. 16-20), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, 
paras. 40-41) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/766 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
259. In June 2005, St. Vincent and the Grenadines re ported that EurepGap certification, introduced 
in 1997,  had now been made a condition for cont inued trade into UK supermarkets.  Some of the 
measures in the EurepGap certification programme  were clearly within the scope of the SPS 
Agreement.  Jamaica indicated similar problems with EurepGap requirements for fresh fruit and 
vegetable entry into the European Communities.  Si nce a reading of the EC food and feed regulation 
indicated that the EurepGap requirements were pr ivate sector requirements, Jamaica asked what 
recourse was available to exporting countries. 
260. The European Communities clarified that EurepGap was a private sector consortium 
representing the interests of major retailers.  Even if these standards, in certain cases, exceeded the 
requirements of EC SPS standards, the European Co mmission could not object to them as they did not 
conflict with EC legislation.  The European Co mmunities encouraged developing country Members, 
and particularly least-developed country Member s, to discuss this issue with non-governmental 
organizations since, in many respects, the Eu repGap requirements reflected their concerns. 
261. Peru recalled that  Article 13 of the SPS Agreement referred to implementation by non-
governmental entities within the territory of the Member.  Ecuador noted concerns regarding the 
impact of this issue on trade towards the European  Communities.  Mexico indicated that it was only 
when SPS measures were adopted by governmental authorities that a Member had the obligation to 
ensure that governmental and non-governmental en tities involved were implementing them properly, 
as provided for in Article 13.  Annex 3 of the TB T Agreement established a code of good practice for 
non-governmental standard-setting in stitutions developing food quality st andards.  This code had been 
accepted by many of these organizations.  Mexico  suggested that the SPS Committee examine these 
provisions of the TBT Agreement before reaching any conclusion on the issue. 
262. Argentina noted that international agreements existed to ensure that SPS measures were not 
unnecessarily stringent so as to act as barriers to international trade, and countries had devoted 
substantial resources to participate in standards development and implementation.  If the private 
sector adopted unnecessarily restrictive standards affecting trade, and countries had no forum in 
which to advocate rationalization of these standards, twenty years of discussions in international fora 
would have been wasted.  Argentina argued that the rational and legal aspects of these kinds of 
regulations had to be addressed. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 68  
 
  263. In October 2006, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines indicated that their concerns with respect 
to the EurepGAP issue remained th e same, even after the informal session held before the meeting to 
explain the issue of private standards.  The cost implications of these private standards, which were 
often of greater rigidity than the internationall y set standards were very huge, especially for small 
farmers in small and vulnerable economies.  Arge ntina, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Indonesia, 
Kenya and South Africa shared the concerns of Sa int Vincent and the Grenadines and suggested that 
the issue of private and commercial standards in  general should be included on the agenda of 
upcoming SPS Committee meetings. 
 
220. Proposed regulations for piper methysticum (kava-kava) – Maintained by 
United Kingdom 
Raised by: Fiji 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 72-73) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/GBR/4 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
264. At the June 2005 meeting, Fiji expressed concerns regarding the UK notification of 
emergency measures on kava-kava, as  kava-kava was one of Fiji's few tradable crops of economic 
significance.  Fiji's concerns were related to the request of the UK Commission on Safety of 
Medicines (CSM) to prohibit kava-kava use in unli censed medicinal products on the grounds that the 
CSM had sufficient evidence to conclude that kava -kava was associated with rare cases of liver 
toxicity.  According to an in-depth investiga tion of kava-kava products conducted by a German 
consulting firm in 2003, the efficacy and safety of kava-kava had been proven by 20 clinical trials 
including more than 10,000 patients and supporte d by post-marketing experience in Europe, the 
United States and other areas.  Health author ities such as the US Food and Drug Administration 
agreed that kava-kava was a safe drug.  Findings also  showed that should the toxicity exist, it would 
occur in an extremely low number of patients, far below the incident rate observed with other freely 
available drugs.  Out of 450 million kava-kava p ills exported all over the word between 1990 and 
2000, only three cases of liver problems had been li nked to the pills.  The Fiji kava-kava council was 
currently drafting a legislative text including, inter alia , standards, certification and labelling to ensure 
consistency and quality of supply.  Fiji request ed the European Communities to provide any new 
evidence that supported the claim that the cons umption of products containing kava-kava was 
associated with liver damage. 
265. The European Communities recalled that the re gulation banning kava-kava had come into 
force in England and Scotland in 2003 following report s of rare but serious risks to public health and 
a review of evidence by independent experts in 200 2.  Similar regulations for Northern Ireland had 
been planned at the time but only notified on 14 June  2005.  A similar notification for Wales was also 
due to be issued soon.  The Food Standards Agency of the United Kingdom had recently requested new evidence on kava-kava in order to review its position. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 69 
 
 
  Animal Health 
17. Cosmetics and  BSE 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: Brazil, Chile, United States 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  61-62), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 22-
24) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/20, G/SPS/N/EEC/43 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
266. Australia expressed concern regarding an EC me asure specifying that cosmetics containing 
certain bovine, ovine and caprine tissues etc. should not be placed on the market.  This directive did 
not recognize the animal health status of supplyi ng countries.  The European Communities stressed 
that since BSE surveillance was still under developm ent and since detection was difficult, there was 
considerable uncertainty surrounding the global prevalence of BSE.  All comments received by the 
deadline would be taken into account, and the regula tion would enter into force on 1 July 1997.  In 
July 1998, the United States stressed  that the measure would reduce or eliminate US exports of tallow 
derivatives, soaps and cosmetics.  The European  Communities clarified that in light of WHO 
recommendations, measures had to be taken to redu ce the risk of transmission of TSEs to humans 
through the food or feed chain, pharmaceuticals or cosmetics.  Regarding BSE-freedom, the European 
Communities was not prepared to recognize any country as BSE-free, taking into account the 
difficulties of certifying such a status. 
 
18. Certification requirements for pet food – Maintained by France  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Chile 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 7-8), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 20-21), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/18, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
267. In March 1997, the United States expressed conc ern with regard to French certification 
requirements adopted under national legislation whic h blocked US exports of pet food and had not 
been notified to WTO.  Bilateral exchanges with  France had produced no progress.  The European 
Communities regretted that their internal procedur e for notification of national measures had delayed 
notification of the French measure in question.  The measure had been based on discussions and 
recommendations at the EC Commission level, r ecommendations by the WHO, as well as parallel 
scientific discussions in the United Kingdom and France. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 70  
 
  268. In July 1997, the United States again raised c oncerns with the French measure for protection 
from TSEs.  The measure did not account for the fact  that the United States was BSE-free, and did not 
seem to have a scientific basis.  Furthermore, the measure applied to species not affected by TSEs, 
such as poultry and fish.  Chile expressed concern re garding the effect the regulation might have on 
trade in fishmeal.  The European Communities point ed out a few inaccuracies in the US document, 
and noted that the provisions banning the use of  frozen animals or animal cadavers were not 
necessarily addressing health issues, but image and qua lity, and were therefore not strictly relevant 
under the SPS Agreement.  Discussion of the matter  continued within the European Communities. 
269. In July 2001, the United States reported that its exports continued to be hampered by French 
certification requirements, which differed from those applied by other EC member States 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States questioned the scientific foundation for excluding animal meat 
or bone meal from pet food produced in countries where BSE does not occur. 
 
31. Rules on "specified risk materials" in products of animal origin 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Brazil,  Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, 
Mexico, New Zealand, Switzerland, Uruguay 
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev. 1, paras. 10-14), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, 
paras. 13-19), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 34-38), July 2001 
(G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/36, G/SPS/GEN/45, G/SPS/GEN/67, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
270. In October 1997, the United States raised concerns with Decision 97/534 EC banning the use 
of certain specified risk materials, which might cause international shortages of needed medical 
products and have a major restrictive impact on trade in tallow and derivatives, gelatine, 
pharmaceuticals and many food products.  This ban se emed to be more restrictive than necessary to 
achieve its public health objectives, especially as it applied to the United States and other regions 
where BSE was not known to exist.  The European Communities indicated that since scientific studies 
had shown that its previous measures might not be su fficient, it had raised its level of protection.  
Members who considered themselves to present no risk with regard to TSEs could present an 
application for examination by the EC Scientific Committee.  Argentina indicated that in its view, 
measures which failed to distinguish between countri es infected with BSE and countries not infected 
were contrary to the OIE recommendations and the SPS Agreement.  He distributed copies of a BSE 
risk analysis. 
271. In March 1998, the United States reiterated that the European Communities should recognize 
the BSE-free status of the United States and other regions.  Several delegations welcomed the EC 
decision to provide additional time to review al l the scientific evidence and other important 
implications of the proposed measure and provide d comments.  The European Communities clarified 
that entry into force of its measure had been post poned from 1 April to 1 July 1998, and that BSE-free 
countries could apply for an additiona l derogation until 1 January 1999.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 71 
 
 
  272. In June 1998, the European Communities reporte d that EC member States were still unable to 
reach a common position on the issue, and that the EC  Decision would therefore not enter into force 
until 1 January 1999.  In the meantime, member Stat es had introduced a number of measures.  The EC 
Commission was also submitting new legislati on for approval, taking into account the OIE 
classification of countries with respect to BSE. 
273. In July 2001, the United States indicated that the EC legislation on specified risk materials 
had entered into force for third countries on 1 April 2001 (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States 
encouraged the European Comm unities to ensure that its measures took account of the disease 
situation in countries where BSE did not occur, such as the United States. 
 32. Gelatin imports  
Raised by: Brazil, United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Chile, Mexico, Thailand, United States 
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev. 1, paras. 8-9), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, 
para. 16), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,  paras. 22-23), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, para. 19), July 1999 (G /SPS/R/15, paras. 9-11), November 
1999 (G/SPS/R/17, paras. 6-7), Marc h 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, paras. 21-22), 
March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 95-96), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 52-
53), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/133, G/SPS/N/EEC/74 
Solution: In October 2001, Brazil reported that the European Communities had lifted 
its restrictions in June 2001.  US concern ongoing. 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
274. In October 1997, Brazil indicated that its gela tin exports had been negatively affected by 
French requirements for specific production methods , which in Brazil's view lacked scientific 
justification.  Where BSE had been diagnosed, raw materials for gelatin were considered low risk 
products.  In addition, there had never been a cas e of BSE in Brazil.  Th e European Communities 
responded that the French decision had been taken in the expectation of EC provisions which would 
introduce conditions related to microbiological an d chemical criteria, and minimum requirements 
related to BSE.  The OIE Code required certain prov isions which in the EC view Brazil did not fulfill, 
and Brazil had not presented an application to the European Communities to request recognition of its 
TSE-free status. 
275. Brazil reiterated its concerns in March 1998, and indicated that an EC questionnaire on 
animal feeding in Brazil would soon be officially pr ovided to the EC authorities.  In September 1998, 
Brazil reported that despite numerous bilateral ta lks, no progress had been made.  The European 
Communities noted that the origin of the problem wa s that Brazil considered itself as BSE-free, while 
in the EC view no country could be designated as B SE-free.  Both countries agreed that there had 
been some misunderstandings and were willing to  resolve them through further contacts.  In 
November 1998, Brazil welcomed a new French decision which took into account some of the Brazilian comments, and urged France to implement these new requirements as soon as possible. 
276. In July 1999, Brazil acknowledged the EC notifi cation on the matter, but remained concerned 
as its gelatin exports were still interrupted.  The proposed EC legislation, which was not based on a G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 72  
 
  risk assessment, would severely impact the ability of  non-European countries to supply gelatin to the 
EC market.  Brazil asked that the European Communities accept other countries' measures as 
equivalent.  The European Communities explaine d its new measure, and invited all Members to 
comment in writing.  In November 1999, both Members reported that they had decided to pursue the matter bilaterally.  In March 2000, Brazil a nd the European Comm unities made a joint 
communication announcing that cons tructive consultations had taken place, and that the European 
Communities would evaluate the relevant documentation provided by Brazil. 
277. In March 2001, the United States indicated that  since May 2000, EC and US authorities had 
been discussing the continuation of US gelatin sh ipments based on the equi valence of US and EC 
safety systems.  Despite continuing efforts of US  regulatory authorities and industry, the European 
Communities had not agreed to accept equivale nce based on export certificates issued by US 
authorities.  As a result, there had been no expor ts of US food grade gelatin to the European 
Communities since June 2000.  The United States appreci ated EC efforts to review information, and 
urged the Commission to accept the equivalence of  US certificates.  The European Communities 
stated that both sides had a clear idea of the problems involved, which were primarily of a judicial 
nature.  The European Communities was proposing flex ible solutions which both parties might find 
acceptable. 
278. In July 2001, the United States reported that d espite ongoing efforts, US shipments of gelatin 
had been discontinued since June 2000 because the European Communities had not agreed to accept 
equivalence-based export certificates.  The United States had demonstrated that US gelatin food 
safety systems met the EC appropriate level of prot ection.  The European Communities clarified that 
US gelatin was not prohibited, but that negotiati ons were underway on a specific certificate for the 
United States.  The equivalence of the US prod uction system had been established on all but two 
points, where compliance with additional requirement s must be certified.  Since December 2000, the 
only pending question was that FDA, as a matter of policy, did not certify compliance with foreign rules, while the European Communities require d certification by a competent authority. 
279. In October 2001, Brazil reported that intense bilateral consultations on Brazilian processing 
methods and controls had resulted in the Eur opean Communities lifting its restrictions as of 
13 June 2001. 
 
33. Salmonella-related restriction on fishmeal imports 
Raised by: Chile, Peru 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 48-50) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
280. Chile and Peru sought clarification regarding th e EC directive governing exports of fishmeal, 
which was not applied to substitutes to fishmeal .  These substitutes could also potentially be 
contaminated with salmonella, as had been confirmed by recent research carried out in the United Kingdom.  The European Communities indicated that  the directive was justified on the basis of 
available scientific information, although worki ng groups were considering whether similar criteria  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 73 
 
 
  should be applied to feedingstuffs of vegetable orig in.  Some EC member States had introduced heat 
treatment requirements, although others had fo und that there were not sufficient grounds for 
introducing such criteria. 
281. Chile also raised concerns with unilateral im port prohibitions by France and Italy affecting 
fishmeal for feeding ruminants, including mixtur es with bone meal, with the alleged objective of 
preventing risk arising from contamination.  The European Communities answer ed that it needed to 
effectively enforce its mammalian protein feed ban to ruminants, but was facing practical difficulties in segregating the origins of various raw materi als, including fish.  The European Communities 
indicated it would examine the issue together with the two member States involved. 
 64. Ban on antibiotics in feed 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada 
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 26-29) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
282. The United States noted the failure of the Eu ropean Communities to notify the ban on four 
antibiotics used in animal feed  to enhance production that had been adopted in December 1998.  
Canada and Australia shared the US concern, a nd Canada requested to be informed when the 
European Communities reviewed its  measure, which it understood to be provisional.  The European 
Communities replied that this was an interim prot ective measure which would be re-examined before 
the end of December 2000.  The resu lts of the re-examination would be  shared with Members, as well 
as published electronically.  The measure had not been notified because it did not contain any provision applicable to imports, a nd therefore had no effect on trade. 
 
97. Restrictions on the use of fishmeal  
Raised by: Chile, Norway, Peru 
Supported by: Chile, Ecuador, Iceland, Norway, Peru, United States 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, pa ras. 17-21), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
paras. 12-17), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/ 26, 31-32), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 134-136), March 2005 (G/ SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 74-77) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/256, G/SPS/GEN/264 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 74  
 
  283. In July 2001, Peru expressed concern about the EC prohibition on the use of fishmeal in the 
elaboration of ruminant feed, which had no scientif ic basis, was not based on a risk assessment, and 
was more trade-restrictive than required.  The comp etent authorities in Peru had shown that fishmeal 
and fish oil were safe to human and animal h ealth, and had high nutritional value.  Since the 
prohibition had a very serious impact on the Peruvian economy, Peru asked the European 
Communities to lift this restriction as soon as possible.   Chile underlined that fishmeal was not at all 
related to BSE.  At bilateral meetings, the Eur opean Communities had explained that the restriction 
was related to cross-contamination of fishmeal  and other animal meals within the European 
Communities.  Chile requested the European Comm unities to exclude fishmeal from the prohibition, 
and to be more flexible with standards applied to  processing plants in the meantime.  The European 
Communities had classified Chile as having minimal BSE risk, and Chile ha d offered to provide 
quality and traceability certificates.  Chile was surprised  that there were no restrictions on vegetable 
meals, which could also be mixed with meat a nd bone meal (MBM) in feed.  In addition, MBM 
continued to be used as pet food in the European  Communities.  The United States urged Members to 
reacquaint themselves with the relevant OI E guidelines and recommendations (G/SPS/GEN/230). 
284. The OIE representative drew attention to the WHO/FAO/OIE conference held in June 2001 
on BSE, public health, animal health and trade (G /SPS/GEN/260).  The expert s at this meeting had 
concluded that the basis of the EC ban on feedi ng rendered animal protein to farm animals was to 
avoid risk of cross-contamination of the animal feed  system.  Discussions had highlighted the lack of 
technical means to verify the absence of banned products in meals at very low levels.  The European Communities confirmed that the ban on the use of fish meal in ruminant feed was a safeguard measure 
reflecting failures in the implementation of rules on animal feed.  Imports of fishmeal had not been 
prohibited, but its use was subject to strict conditions.  The European Communities wished to 
minimize trade effects and was ready to evaluate with Chile, Peru and other countries the 
consequences, if any, on their exports. 
285. In October 2001, Peru indicated that the Eu ropean Communities recognized that there was no 
scientific evidence demonstrating that BSE could be  transmitted through fishmeal, but maintained its 
restrictions to address an internal problem of cr oss-contamination and fraudulent practices.  Peru 
requested that the European Comm unities lift the restrictions as soon as possible.  Chile noted that 
applying the same restrictions on fishmeal as for MBM had no scientific basis and was not consistent 
with OIE or WHO recommendations.  Chile was concerned over the length of time that the 
provisional measure had been in place and the suggest ion that a new diagnostic test of the presence of 
animal proteins in feed would need to be devel oped before the measure could be rescinded.  Chile 
would explore all options available under the SPS Agre ement to have the restrictions lifted.  The 
United States underlined the need for BSE control me asures to reflect the different risk status of 
particular products and countries.  Iceland obj ected strongly to the EC measures which were 
tantamount to an import ban on fishmeal for animal feed. 
286. The European Communities clarified that the legislation was a provisional measure that 
covered the internal use of fishmeal.  As all pr oducers were requested to fulfill the same conditions, 
the measure was not discriminatory.  A derogation allowed the use of fishmeal in feeds for non-
ruminant animals provided certain strict produc tion and handling conditions were met.  The 
development of a reliable, but l ess laborious detection test would be a decisive element when 
reviewing the feed ban, and efforts were underw ay in the Communities in this regard.  The 
representative of the European Communities questioned claims that the EC regulations had an adverse 
impact on trade. 
287. In March 2002, Peru stated that there was a l ack of political will on the part of the European 
Communities to reach a solution to this problem.  Fish meal posed no risk of BSE for human or animal 
health, but the EC measure created doubts among other countries, which resulted in a negative impact  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 75 
 
 
  on fishmeal trade.  Furthermore, as the EC measure  had been extended indefinitely, it could no longer 
be justified as a provisional measure. 
288. The European Communities noted that the meas ure was maintained due to demonstrated 
cases of cross-contamination detected through the EC 's detection system.  One tool which could help 
resolve this issue was a reliable test which c ould distinguish mammalian meals from fishmeal.  
Unfortunately, although under development, such a test  would not be available in the near future.  The 
European Communities requested Peru  to provide evidence of trade disruption as a result of the EC 
measure, as no disruption was apparent in EU trade statistics. 
289. In June 2004, Chile noted that the Europ ean Communities was reviewing the restrictive 
measures on fishmeal in cattle feed.  Lifting the ban would require the development of a diagnostic 
test which would assure all EC member States that detection of contamination of fishmeal with bone- 
or meat-meal would be possible.  Chile had receive d information that the diagnostic method had been 
standardized and the Food Chain and Animal He alth Committee would vote on lifting the ban in 
September 2004.  The European Communities were  requested to provide further information 
concerning the possible date when the ban would be lifted.  Peru also requested a written explanation 
from the European Communities. 
290. The European Communities responded that results of the test were pending and that a written 
reply would be made available after the Food Chain and Animal Health Committee meeting in 
September 2004. 
291. In March 2005, Norway reiterated concerns regarding the EC prohibition on the use of 
fishmeal in ruminant feed due to BSE concerns.  The OIE had confirmed that there was no scientific 
evidence to support the view that fish or fishmeal co uld transmit or disseminate the disease.  Iceland, 
Norway, Peru and Chile supported the statement made  by Norway.  The decision to ban the use of 
fishmeal in feed for ruminants was introduced becau se of fear of cross contamination and of fraud in 
the blending process.  It was now possible to det ect whether animal protein was present in feed 
containing fishmeal.  Peru and Chile asked the Euro pean Communities to take into consideration the 
damage this measure caused to de veloping countries.  Fish meal was one of Peru's main export 
products. 
292. The European Communities noted that this measu re had been introduced as a control measure 
to prevent fraud and cross contamination and ha d not had serious consequences on trade.  The 
measure was modified to allow for continued use of fishmeal for poultry and pigs.  The ban was only applied to feed for ruminants which was only about three per cent of the market.  The test, which 
allowed discrimination between protein of mammalian  origin and of fish origin, removed the main 
technical scientific barrier to the lifting of the measure.  The Commission, however, was concerned 
about reopening the feed dossier, given consumer sensitivities in this area. 
 
159. Proposal on animal by-products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  40-45), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 47-
49), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, par as. 27-30), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras. 53-55), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 39-41) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/103 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 76  
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
293. The United States stated that EC regulation 1774/2002 would severely restrict or prohibit a 
range of animal by-products intended for use in feed, industrial or other non-food purposes.  Due to 
the lack of transparency of this regulation, the lack of sufficient tim e and information for exporters to 
comply and the EC failure to adequately address th e concerns of third countries, the United States 
requested a delay in the implementation of the re gulation.  The United States was also concerned 
about derogations for certain EC member States that were not available to third countries, the lack of 
scientific justification for the regulation and the la ck of a risk assessment for the proposed inter-
species feed ban.  Brazil shared the concerns raised by the United States. 
294. China requested the European Communities to delay the regulation's implementation until 
1 May 2005.  Australia stated that without clarif ications and equivalence determinations, it would 
have difficulty in complying by 1 May 2003 and might seek a delay in the full implementation of the 
regulation.  Canada stated that it did not see how pr actical implementation of this regulation would be 
possible by 1 May 2003 and was of the view th at a delay in implementation was warranted and 
required. 
295. The European Communities stated that the objectives of the draft regulation were to ban the 
recycling of dead animals, offer alternatives to denaturation, take account of environmental 
requirements, control traceability of sub-products and simplify the patchwork of existing legislation.  
Information meetings on 13 Nove mber 2002 and 28 March 2003 were or ganized and an explanatory 
document had been produced.  The measures were b ased on solid science, even though no formal risk 
assessment had been conducted for each chapter of  the text, and the European Communities were 
willing to make all relevant inform ation available to trading partners.  Certain EC member States and 
third countries had expressed concern over the date of entry into force of the regulation.  As a result, 
the European Commission was studying transitiona l arrangements which would enable temporary 
flexibility on certain provisions.  Any temporary fl exibility or new measures on certification of third 
country products would be decided on and notif ied to WTO Members with a new deadline for 
comment. 
296. In June 2003, China reported that it had subm itted comments on the EC regulation on animal 
by-products but had not received any reply.  China would need a transitional period of two years to 
adjust.  The United States stated that concerns raised at the last SPS Committee meeting were still 
valid.  The European Communities confirmed that  comments made by China would be carefully 
examined and that China would receive a response.  The European Communities would take a flexible 
view on transitional measures for third countries. 
297. In October 2003, the United States reported that despite bilateral techni cal discussions and the 
lack of scientific risk assessments, disruption of US exports of pet food was likely.  Canada welcomed 
the decision to postpone implementation of the regul ation for third parties beyond 1 May 2003.  EC 
member States benefited from 16 tr ansitional measures to allow them to adjust to the new regulations, 
and Canada asked to also benefit from such tran sitional measures.  China requested a transitional 
review of the regulation and c ontinued bilateral discussions. 
298. The European Communities explained that tran sitional measures had been adopted for EC 
members States and additional time for comp liance for all third parties allowed until 
31 December 2003 (EC 1812/2003).  Certification of imports had been reviewed and notified.  The  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 77 
 
 
  European Communities had decided to offer target ed transitional measures to third countries on a 
case-by-case basis.  A technical agreement, based  on comments received from Australia, Canada, 
China and the United States, would be notified s hortly.  The European Communities were awaiting 
the conclusions of a scientific review to produce the risk assessment which would be available in 
February 2004. 
299. In March 2004, the United States expressed con tinued concern over the negative trade impact 
of EC regulation 1774/2002 which entered into for ce on 1 May 2004.  This regulation was notified as 
G/SPS/N/EEC/103 but questions on its implemen tation remained even though the European 
Communities had granted a one-year delay in its enfo rcement.  The European Communities had yet to 
publish the final text of the regulation and the US request for a risk analysis had gone unanswered.  
The European Communities were asked to clarify the remaining implementation questions and to 
delay enforcement of the regulation.  Canada shar ed the concerns of the United States and requested 
the European Communities to provide information on its plans to formally adopt the derogations as 
well as provide details of any othe r transitional measures that had been or would be granted to third 
countries. 
300. The European Communities recalled that the im plementation of transitional measures were 
announced in the June 2003 Committee meeting and introduced new provisions that required EC 
member States to provisionally accept imports from thir d countries.  With regards to the risk analysis, 
a report would be available at the end of Marc h.  The second postponement of EC regulation 
268/2002 and delayed implementation of EC regulation 1674 should enab le trading partners to adapt 
to new conditions for certification of imports into the European Comm unities.  The European 
Communities was also studying the possibility of adopting measures regulating the use of gelatine, 
collagen and other products destined exclusively fo r technical and industrial applications and banning 
their use in food, cosmetic, pharmaceutical and me dical products.  A draft bill had been submitted to 
the permanent committee this week and the Europ ean Communities would keep the United States and 
Canada updated on this issue. 
301. In June 2004, the United States commented that EC Regulation No. 1774 imposed new 
requirements on gelatine, tallow, pet food, yellow grease and other animal by-products not intended 
for human consumption.  This regulation had been  implemented on 15 June 2004, although product 
could arrive in the European Communities as late  as 15 August 2004.  Consultations had lead to 
derogations on hide, skins and tallow but the Unite d States continued to be concerned about other 
provisions of the regulation, particularly those related to pet food and yellow grease.  Canada 
expressed satisfaction that the European Comm unities had adopted two transitional measures 
requested by Canada.  Since these complicated re gulations had been put in place, the European 
authorities had indicated that a flexible enfo rcement strategy would be implemented until 
15 August 2004.  Although no problems had yet been reported by Canadian e xporters, problems could 
arise with the end of "soft" enforcement in August. 
302. The European Communities stat ed that based upon on-going consultations with the United 
States and Canada, the regulations were modified to  include justified exemptions.  The EC regulation 
allowed cooking oils (yellow grease) to be used fo r animal feed only when they came from the food 
industry and only when a reliable system of traceab ility had been established.  Imported used cooking 
oils intended for technical purposes remained author ized without restriction.  The use of animal 
carcasses judged unfit for human consumption in pe t food had been prohibited based upon scientific 
information which indicated that the BSE epidemic  had spread through recycling of infected bovine 
material in bovine feed.  A waiver had been implem ented for the use of wild fish protein for feed for 
fish in fish farms.  The European Communities indicated a willingness to discuss implementation of 
this regulation with Members concerne d about potential trade restrictions. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 78  
 
  160. Transitional BSE measures 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 97-98) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/192 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
303. The United States noted that according to Re gulation 999/2001, th e categorization of 
countries with regard to risk of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) would be made 
within six months of submission of the informatio n.  Although, the newly notified measure extended 
the transitional measure until 30 June 2005, th e United States was concerned whether this was 
sufficient time for the European Co mmunities to complete the classifications.  There was no scientific 
justification for applying BSE-related rest rictions on products from the United States. 
304. The European Communities explained that th e notification concerned an amendment to 
Article 23 of EC Regulation 999/2001 establishing rules for the eradication, prevention and control of 
certain TSEs.  It included BSE and all TSEs.  The amendment extended transitional measures 
established under Article 23 of this regulation.  Th e regulation provided rules to determine the BSE 
status of particular countries which conditioned th e application of measures covering the import of 
certain animals and animal products.  Until the stat us determination was made , transitional measures 
were applied and were to remain in force until 30 J une 2003.  An assessment of the cases began at the 
end of 2001.  However, modification of the categor ization criteria was necessary to obtain a status 
reflecting actual risk.  These criteria were taken from the international code of OIE but it appeared that the OIE was not ready to propose a list of BSE-free countries.  Likewise, in the European Communities, scientific risk assessments for all countri es were not yet finished, and the EC Scientific 
Committee had adopted opinions for only around one- third of countries asking for a determination of 
their status.  Therefore, the transitional measures were being prolonged by two years until 1 July 
2005.  The European Commission would use this period to advance the work in the OIE on 
determining the BSE and TSE status of countries and complete the scientific risk assessments.  The 
European Communities was examini ng the substantial documentation submitted by the United States 
in January 2003, and would report to the United States on the results of the risk assessment as soon as 
possible. 
 
161. EC Directive 2001/661/EC on foot and mouth disease 
Raised by: South Africa 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 38-39) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/373 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 79 
 
 
  305. South Africa stated that its concerns were detailed in G/SPS/GEN/373.  South Africa and 
Namibia are identified as zones free from FMD without vaccination by the OIE.  EC Directive 2001/661 recognized the free-zone status, allowing the import of fresh meat from South Africa except for areas within the FMD control zone of Sout h Africa.  However, Directive 2001/661 required 
supplementary guarantees for the export of ovine and caprine meat from the FMD-free zones without 
vaccination and was inconsistent w ith Article 2.1.120 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the 
OIE.  Article 2.1.2.20 does not require the deboning of meat if the meat originates from FMD-free countries or zones where vaccination is not practiced. 
306. The European Communities explained that C ouncil Directive 72/462 differentiated between 
various types of FMD.  The Directive provided that  the import of fresh meat from regions which were 
FMD-free without vaccination but where vaccination ag ainst SAT or Asiat 1 viruses was practiced in 
another region of the country could only be aut horized under certain conditions.  One of the 
conditions was that the meat be mature, de-bone d, with lymph nodes removed and that importation 
take place only three weeks after slaughter.  Thes e conditions applied to South Africa due to the 
presence of SAT in a part of South Africa even thoug h certain areas were officially FMD-free without 
vaccination.  The EC legislation, dating fro m 1972, was to be updated as SAT was no longer 
considered differently from other virus strains.  This  would occur with the entry into force of Council 
Directive 99/2002 on 1 January 2005.  However, the European Communities was concerned that there 
had been four outbreaks of FMD in Namibia orig inating from Zimbabwe, where there were hundreds 
of cases.  In these circumstances, it was prudent to authorize only the importation of de-boned, mature meat.  Once the new Directive was in force, the European Communities would review its measure in 
light of the FMD situation in South Africa and its neighbouring countries. 
 
170. Live animals and animal products 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 68-69) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/190 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
307. Australia stated that the notified measure would affect its alpaca exports to EC member States 
although Australia had been free from blue tongue for more than a decade, as recognized by many 
countries.  Australia had submitted scientific evidence to the European  Communities on several 
occasions and requested an update on this issue. 
308. The European Communities clarified that th e new notification was not due to a new 
regulation but merely a result of a simplification ex ercise which did not address Australia's situation.  
The European Communities indicat ed that it would respond to Australia's request directly. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 80  
 
  171. Animal health conditions and certification requirements for live fish 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/198 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
309. Australia indicated that this new measure could affect its carp exports to EC member States.  
The United Kingdom had rejected live fish from Austra lia due to concerns about the existence of an 
unknown carrier state.  Australia had suggested prior disinfection as a possible solution and had 
requested the risk assessment on which the measur e was based, but received no response.  This 
requirement was not in line with OIE standards. 
310. The European Communities replied that the tim e period for replying to comments had not yet 
expired.  The European Communities believed that  the measures could be considered standard 
measures and that no risk assessme nt was necessary, although it was prepared to discuss the issue 
bilaterally with interested trading partners. 
 
177. Sanitary conditions for the import ation of live material for apiculture 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Australia, New Zealand, United States 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 42-44), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras. 56-58), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/ 34, paras. 27-29), October 2004 
(G/SPS/R/35, paras. 51-52) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/208 and Add.1, G/SPS/N/ARG/71 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
311. Argentina stated it recognized the need to minimize the risks of introducing pests of 
apiculture and that it had its own measures (G /SPS/N/ARG/71).  However, the EC measure, which 
restricted the importation of queen bees and accompanying working bees from third countries, was unjustified.  The EC measure required exporting count ries to prove that they were free of the small 
hive beetle ( Aethina tumida ) and of the Tropilaelaps mite.  Argentina was free from the pests and 
considered the EC response to its comments unsa tisfactory.  Argentina requested the European 
Communities to defer implementation of the measure. 
312. The United States expected that the new regulation would take into account disease-free 
areas, for example, Hawaii was free from the two pests.  Australia supported the US position and 
stated that the EC proposed requirement was unr easonable and needed to take into account disease- G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 81 
 
 
  free status.  New Zealand supported the comme nts made by Argentina, the United States and 
Australia. 
313. The European Communities stated that the first no tification was of a draft decision to restrict 
the importation of queen bees and their escorts to st op the introduction of the two parasites.  These 
two parasites, although not included on the OIE list,  posed a serious risk as they damaged hives and 
caused economic losses.  Comments from Members ha d been taken into account and amendments to 
the measure had been notified.  Disease-free zone s and health certificates covering these two pests 
would enable the safe import of b ees into the Europ ean Communities. 
314. In March 2004, Argentina reiterated that the presence of the small hive beetle ( Aethina 
tumida ) and the Tropilaelaps mite had not been report ed in Argentina.  Th e European Communities 
had not taken into consideration the differing sanita ry status of exporting countries creating export 
challenges for those countries that did not have the tw o pests.  A bilateral meeting with the European 
Communities was held on 16 March 2004 to seek a pr actical solution to this problem.  The United 
States requested the European Comm unities to consider the fact that the state of Hawaii was free from 
the two concerned pests. 
315. The European Communities indicated that the tw o pests of concern were very difficult to 
eradicate once introduced into a te rritory because the treatments were difficult to implement, were not 
very effective, and left pesticide residues in  the honey.  The small Tropilaelaps mite, which 
transformed into a flying insect in the adult stage a nd could fly up to six ki lometres per day, could 
have devastating effects on honey and other agricultu ral production.  The propos ed measures were not 
disproportionate to the risks.  Bees could be allowed from third countries or from regions of third 
countries that had a competent veterinary service approved by the European Communities and where 
the existence of the two pests was required to be notified.  The bees must also be accompanied by a 
sanitary certificate issued by the competent author ity declaring that the bees came from within a 30-
kilometre radius of the beehive and that this area was free of the two pests.  Argentina satisfied these 
two conditions.  During bilateral consultations with Argentina, pr actical problems faced by Argentina 
in the implementation of the control measures had been identified and the European Communities had 
agreed to find alternative solutions to these problems. 
316. In June 2004, Argentina stated that the requireme nts that hives should be subject to official 
check at the point of destination and queens tran sferred to new locations were not supported by 
scientific justification.  Documentation confirming the absence of the concerned pests in Argentina 
had been provided to the European Communities and Argentina hoped that an upcoming bilateral 
meeting with the European Communities would resolv e this issue.  Australia and the United States 
also expressed concerns about the appropriateness of the EC measure.  Australia considered that the 
measures were inappropriate for the management of the small hive beetle.  The United States reported 
that honey bee exports from Hawaii to the Europ ean Communities had been halted, although the state 
of Hawaii was free of many of the pests covered by  this measure.  The certification requirements for 
honey bees from Hawaii should be modified to re flect the conditions there.  The European 
Communities recalled that these rules had been introdu ced to preserve the parasite free status of honey 
bees in the European Union.  Th e European Communities was prepared  to review the legislation and 
border measures of Argentina and other countries, wh en documentation had been provided, in order to 
assess the possibility of instituting joint measures. 
317. In October 2004, Argentina reported that studies confirming the absence of the parasites  in 
the main exporting regions were made available to  the European Communities and the final version 
would be submitted to the OIE.  Despite having  taken these measures, tr ade in queen bees from 
Argentina was still restricted.  Argentina urged th e European Communities for a prompt resolution of 
the issue as trade in queen bees was a seasonal activ ity.  The European Co mmunities stated that 
bilateral discussions were held with Argentin a where it was explained that these measures were G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 82  
 
  adopted to prevent the introduction of two particular b ee parasites that were of serious risk to the EC 
bee population.  The recent interception of a contaminated shipment from Portugal justified the protective measures adopted by the European Comm unities.  Although Argentina had submitted eight 
reports, the European Communities were still not satis fied that Argentina's measures were sufficient 
to guarantee a parasite-free status.  The reports did not indicate how particular geographical and 
climatic conditions would permit regionalizing the province of Buenos Aires.  The European 
Communities were not in a position at this time to  relax controls on bee imports from Argentina.  
Information received by the European Communities i ndicated that exports of Argentine bees were not 
affected during the 2004 season.  However, the Eur opean Communities were prepared to discuss the 
impact of its measures on international trade with Argentina. 
 
Plant Health 
19. Protected zones 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by: Chile, Mexico, South Africa 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 60) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
318. Uruguay expressed concern about an EC decision to eliminate the criteria for protected zones 
within the European Communities, as this might  result in a strengthening of phytosanitary 
requirements for the whole Community.  This could also have negative consequences for citrus fruit 
exports from Chile.  Delegations requested a clarificat ion of the scientific basis for this proposal.  The 
representative of the European Commu nities indicated he would forward the concerns to the relevant 
authorities.  He clarified that according to th e policy, access to the European Communities would 
depend on the conditions in the country of origin. 
 
81. Wood packing material 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Chile, Japan, Republic of Korea, United States 
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 33-35) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/93 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
319. Canada recognized that wood packing material was widely considered to be at risk of 
containing plant pests.  However, it was used for a very large volume of products moving in  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 83 
 
 
  international trade, and the proposed EC measure would cover 69 per cent of Canada's exports to the 
EC.  Furthermore, the IPPC was working on a compre hensive standard for all countries and all pests, 
to be completed by July 2002, it would be best fo r all countries to focus their efforts on developing an 
international standard and refrain from taking unilate ral actions in this regard.  The United States 
considered that it would be impossible to impl ement the certification and marking requirements 
within the time-period set out in the EC notifica tion.  Korea stressed the need for the European 
Communities to implement the least trade restrictive measure which would be effective, and in this 
respect to take into consideration the historic experience of trade without pest introduction, the 
processing of the packing materials, and the actual pest risks involved. 
320. The European Communities replied that pine w ood nematode had been detected in packing 
materials in 1998 and 1999, despite the existing EC  requirements on wood packing materials.  The EC 
Regulatory Committee for Plant Health was examin ing the comments which had been submitted on 
the EC notification.  The European Communities w as actively contributing to the IPPC efforts to 
develop an international standard, however this did not replace the n eed for an emergency measure to 
protect EC forests.  It was now obvious that the EC measure would not be finalized and implemented 
on the 1 January 2000 date as initially proposed, a nd that bilateral and multilateral consultations 
would continue. 
 
98. Restrictions on Egyptian potatoes 
Raised by: Egypt 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 125-126) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
321. Egypt expressed concern that EC measures agains t imports of Egyptian potatoes, allegedly as 
protection against the disease Pseudomonas solanacearum , severely restricted imports.  Importation 
of Egyptian potatoes was prohibited unless they orig inated from agreed pest-fre e areas, and could be 
suspended if five interceptions of the bacteriu m occurred during the 2000-2001 import season.  Egypt 
believed that these measures might not be in acco rdance with the relevant provision of the SPS 
Agreement and the GATT 1994, and had prepared qu estions for the European Communities.  The 
European Communities indicated that the questions would be answered, and clarified that Egyptian 
potatoes received special treatment in the Europ ean Communities.  Imports were allowed until the 
fifth detection of brown rot, which was a disease on the quarantine lists of IPPC and EPPO, while the 
normal EC standard prohibited imports  after one detection.  The special treatment had been granted in 
consideration of Egypt's special efforts to c ontrol the disease.  The European Communities had 
received and was studying a document from Egypt containing a contingency plan for brown rot 
potatoes.  Egypt had also requested determination of new free areas for export for the next season, and 
the request was being considered. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 84  
 
  108. Cut flowers 
Raised by: Ecuador, Israel 
Supported by: Kenya 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 45-48), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
para. 179), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 94-96) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/131, G/SPS/GEN/278 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
322. Ecuador indicated that it had submitted a list of  questions regarding the scientific grounds for 
the EC measure on cut flowers, the risk analysis, the methods to be used at entry ports, special 
treatment for developing countries, and possible a lternative measures.  Israel expressed concern over 
changes in inspection procedures that could detrimenta lly affect deliveries to its major export market.  
Kenya asked to receive a copy of the EC r esponse to Ecuador's questions.  The European 
Communities explained that the notification covere d four harmful non-native organisms that were 
regularly intercepted on certain commodities including cut flowers:  Amauromyza maculosa , Bemisia 
tabaci (non-European populations), Liriomyza sativae  and Thrips palmi .  At present, most cut flowers 
were not subject to plant health checks, but it a ppeared they were a pathway for the organisms in 
question, and control measures needed to be strengthened.  To assess the comments made by Members, the proposed date of entry into force of  the draft amended regulation had been deferred. 
323. In November 2002, Israel expressed concern w ith EC Regulation 2002/36/EEC.  While Israel 
appreciated that the European Communities had modi fied and delayed the entry into force of the 
proposed revision until April 2003, Israel was of the view that until the European Communities had 
finalized its pest risk assessment the new regulation should be a temporary, not a permanent, measure.  
Israel was further concerned that the European Communities was not taking measures to control pests 
already established in the EC member States from spr eading to new areas, and requested consultations 
with the European Communities and other interest ed Members.  Kenya also expressed hope that a 
solution would be found to the problem.  The European Communities replied that the question was complex and went beyond a simple matter of the use of the precautionary principle.  The ambitious 
pest eradication measures of th e European Communities should not be undermined by imports.  The 
European Communities agreed to bilateral consultations with Israel and Kenya. 
324. In April 2003, Israel noted that EC notifi cation G/SPS/N/EEC/131 concerned an amendment 
to regulation 2000/29/EC which came into force on 1 April 2003, and might have significant effects 
on the export of plant products from a number of Me mbers.  At bilateral consultations with the 
European Communities in March 2003, Israel expres sed concerns regarding differentiation between 
European and non-European varieties of Bemisia tabaci  and the existence of the non-European variety 
in some EC member States.  Israel was in the pr ocess of analyzing the two pest risk analyses produced 
by the European Communities.  Kenya stated it shar ed Israel's concerns with regard to unnecessary 
delays and adverse effects on cut flowers exports .  Bilateral consultations with the European 
Communities on technical assistance for capacity bu ilding had not progressed as desired, although 
Kenya was still hopeful of an amicable solution. 
325. The European Communities recalled that the measures had been enacted after constant 
interceptions of pests on products like fresh flowers led EC member States to review their protective 
measures.  The proposed measures were notified to the WTO on 19 July 2001 and were to take effect 
on 1 January 2002.  However, the European Co mmunities had postponed entry into force until  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 85 
 
 
  1 April 2003 after consideration of the difficulties fa ced by certain exporting countries.  Nevertheless, 
the European Communities had a responsibility to ma intain its appropriate level of protection and 
could not indefinitely postpone the implementati on of these measures.  The European Communities 
had taken all necessary measures to avoid any br eakdown to trade and offered to hold bilateral 
consultations on the matter. 
 
109. Phytosanitary regulations (Canary Islands) – Maintained by Spain 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 97-98), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
para. 42) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
326. Argentina expressed concerns about the differe nce between phytosanitary regulations in the 
Canary Islands and the European Communities, partic ularly as regarded apple and pear imports.  As 
Argentina had demonstrated the equivalence of  its measures in a communication to the EC 
representative in March 2001, there seemed to be no reason to prohibit exports of apples and pears to 
the Canary Islands.  Argentina questioned why the Canary Islands had been exempted from the scope 
of EC Directive 2029, and asked for a probable date  for the implementation of this regulation.  
Argentina requested the acceptance of the equivale nt measures proposed in March.  The European 
Communities stated that it would provide Argen tina with a bilateral reply in due course. 
327. In March 2002, Argentina stated that certain points had been cleared up in bilateral 
consultations with the European Communities a nd Spain and that any further progress would be 
reported to the Committee. 
 
199. Deviation from international standard for wood packing material 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Canada, Chile, Chin a, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Mexico, 
Philippines 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as. 30-37), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 65-68), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Re v.1, paras. 65-69), October 2005 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 69-71), February  2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 69-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/221 and Add.1-3, G/SPS/GEN/556 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 86  
 
  328. In October 2004, the United States expressed  concerns over EC Directive 2004/102 which 
affected the importation of wood packing material.  The Directive required the debarking of wood 
used in packing material in addition to the heat and fumigation treatment prescribed by ISPM 15.  
During the development of ISPM 15, IPPC Memb ers had concluded that there was insufficient 
scientific evidence to justify the debarking require ment as an additional risk management measure.  
The debarking requirement would disrupt trade and undermine efforts to increase international 
harmonization.  The European Communities was request ed to reconsider its measures or postpone the 
implementation of the debarking requirements until scientific justification was available. 
329. New Zealand stated that countries or regions should not adopt unilateral measures for wood 
packing material that would cause the disruption of the global implementation of ISPM 15.  However, 
there might be technical justifications for requiring bark-free ISPM 15 compliant wood packing 
material.  Canada shared the concerns of the United States on the importance of achieving harmonization.  ISPM 15 allowed for the introduc tion of debarking requirements only where it could 
be scientifically justified.  The issue of debark ing was under review by the international forestry 
quarantine research group.  The European Comm unities and those countries introducing debarking 
requirements were requested to reconsider their measures until the completion of the international 
review.  China, Mexico and the Philippines shar ed the concerns of th e United States and urged 
Members not to apply measures in excess of ISPM 15 in the absence of any scientific justification.  
Chile stated that its measures were under pub lic consultation and it welcomed comments from 
Members. 
330. The European Communities stated that EC Di rective 2000/29 established protective measures 
against the introduction and spread of harmful or ganisms to plant and plant products into the 
European Communities.  These measures were not ified on 10 November 2003 and would enter into 
force on 1 March 2005.  There was some flexibility in  the requirements for markings as specified in 
Annex 2 of ISPM 15 and in the conditions requi red for dunnage.  For wood packing material 
manufactured, repaired or recycled before 28 Februa ry 2005, the requirements for the markings would 
not come into effect until 31 December 2007.  Th e requirements for dunnage (except wood less than 6 
mm thick) and processed wood would not come into effect until 31 December 2007.  These products could be made from debarked wood that was free from pests.  These requirements were included to 
ensure protection against future infestation or re-i nfestation once treatment had been completed.  The 
current regulations were being considered by EC  authorities in Brussels and the Committee would be 
informed of any changes. 
331. In March 2005, the United States welcomed th e European Council's decision on 28 February 
to delay the debarking requirem ent contained in Directive 2004/1 02/EC until 1 March 2006.  Canada 
pointed out that no technical justification current ly existed for a debarking requirement.  Canada 
hoped that if a debarking requirement would be  found necessary it could be done on a multilateral 
basis within the context of ISPM 15.  The Philippine s noted that debarking should not be imposed if 
the wood packaging was already on the market or certified to have undergone  the approved treatment 
according to ISPM 15.  The Philippines asked the Eu ropean Communities to take the developments in 
international standard setting into account when th ey decided whether or not to implement their 
current legislation.  The Dominican Republic re quested clarification of the EC extension. 
332. The European Communities emphasized that the problem related to what extent ISPM 15 
permitted debarking.  The European Communities had a very good disease status with respect to 
certain nematodes commonly found in wood pack aging material elsewhere in the world.  
Notwithstanding the views of EC member States that  this was a valid measure, the Commission, in 
light of protests from many third countries, had take n a decision to postpone the measure for one year. 
333. In June 2005, the United States emphasized th at it was still concerned about the pending 
implementation of this new directive, which woul d affect US agricultural and commercial products  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 87 
 
 
  packaged in wood material exported to the Europ ean Communities.  The United States reiterated its 
request for a detailed pest risk analysis or scientific  evaluation justifying this additional requirement.  
Canada suggested extension of the delay until th e IPPC had reviewed and assessed the technical 
justification for this requirement..  In addition, Cana da encouraged parties to work together to try to 
pursue a harmonized approach for the regulation of wood packaging, irrespective of the outcome of 
the IPPC review.  The Philippines invited Members to wait for further information on the EC risk 
analysis and related technical justification for de barking.  The Dominican Republic and Jamaica noted 
the difficulties experienced by many developing countries exporting to the European Communities, 
particularly in their efforts to meet the requireme nts of ISPM 15.  Argentina and Chile noted that a 
working group in the IPPC was working on the issue of debarking. 
334. The European Communities recalled that the European Commission had notified the measure 
to the SPS Committee almost one year befo re its adoption by the European Council 
(G/SPS/N/EEC/221 and Add.1-3; G/SPS/GEN/556).  Although the European Communities was satisfied with the scientific basis for the deba rking requirement of Directive 2004/102/EC, it had 
postponed its entry into force as a consequence of the numerous comments received from several 
Members with regard to the potential for very serious disruption of trade, in order to review and 
strengthen its scientific justification.  The Eur opean Commission was currently putting together a 
technical dossier with the intention of presenting it to the IPPC International Forestry Quarantine 
Research Group in November 2005. 
335. In February 2006, the United States and Canada  welcomed the delayed implementation of the 
requirement that imported wood packaging materi al be debarked (Directive 2004/102), and the 
European Communities commitment to  work through the IPPC to a ddress issues related to ISPM 15 
based on scientific evidence.  The representative of the Philippines noted that the Philippines 
continued to be interested in monitoring  further developments of this issue. 
336. The European Communities clarified that the implementation of ISPM 15 was not postponed, 
but only the debarking requirement  This postpon ement decision resulted, in part, from previous 
discussions in the SPS Committee about the potential serious disruption of trade and the need to 
convince trading partners of the scientific and technical basis for this requirement. 
 
209. Plant health directive 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 40-41) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
337. In March 2005, the United States noted under th e new EC plant health Directive 2000/29/EC, 
as amended, and Regulation 1756/2004 the inspection rates for plant products would significantly 
increase in relation to previous years.  The increase in inspections was likely to slow the release of 
products to importers, thus increasing the potential fo r spoilage and damage.  The United States also 
sought clarification on how EC member States had provided the data on impor ted consignments and 
inspections, as required under Regulation 1756/2004. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 88  
 
  338. The European Communities clarified that the overall purpose of the new Regulation was to 
reduce the level of phytosanitary controls on impor ts of certain plants, plants products and other 
objects listed in part B of Annex V to Council Di rective 2000/29/EC.  However, there would be a 
period of adjustment in moving to wards this new system during which controls would likely increase.  
A bilateral meeting had permitted discussions of the impact of the legislation with representatives of 
the US industry and EC authorities were making as qui ck a transition as possible to the new system of 
controls, taking into account the past record of US fresh produce exports. 
 
Other concerns 
110. Agricultural biotechnology approval process 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Philippines 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 102-105), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 33-35), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/ 27, paras. 56-57), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 69-72), September 2006 (WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, 
WT/DS293/R) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Dispute settlement.  Panel estab lished August 2003.  Panel report adopted 
on 21 November 2006 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
339. The United States expressed concern regarding th e lack of a functioning approval process in 
the European Communities for agricultural biotechnology products.  Since 1998, a de facto  
moratorium on approval of biotechnology products  had been in place.  The United Stated believed 
that under the SPS Agreement the European Communities was obligated to have a functioning approval process and decisions on pending applications  should not be delayed.  The United States 
urged the European Commission to restart the approval process as soon as possible.  Canada was 
concerned that the European Communities was funda mentally altering the regulation of agriculture 
and food products to discriminate on the basis of how a product was produced rather than the product's characteristics.  Canada also considered th e proposed new EC regulations to be arbitrary, as 
they required labelling for highly re fined products, such as oil that did not contain detectable DNA or 
protein, while not requiring similar controls on  products that could present equal risk but were 
produced with other methods of development such as mutation breeding or mutagenesis.  Moreover, 
the proposed regulations discriminated against pr oducts produced from genetically modified products, 
but not against products produced with genetically  modified organisms such as cheese and wine.  
Canada argued that the proposed regulations were  not commensurate with the risks and lacked 
scientific basis.  Furthermore, the proposed re gulations were fundamentally unworkable, as 
demonstrated by the one per cent threshold for the adventitious presence of GMOs. 
340. The European Commission reaffirmed its inter est and positive actions aimed at allowing the 
authorization procedures to continue.  The recent meeting of the European Environment Council had 
started a very important discussion on proposals presented by the Commission to restart the authorization procedure.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 89 
 
 
  341. In March 2002, the United States reported that no progress had been made on the EC approval 
system despite statements by various Commission officials.  The de facto  moratorium had resulted in 
the loss of over $200 million per year in US agri cultural exports.  New information given by 
Commission officials in February 2002 that the a pproval process would be restarted later in 2002 was 
welcome.  Frustration in US commercial and political  circles continued to increase.  While the United 
States welcomed the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority, this did not address the 
fundamental problem of individual EC member States holding the approval process hostage to political concerns, with disregard for science and sound regulatory decision-making.  Canada 
supported the US comments and noted that the March 1998 EC moratorium represented a de facto  ban 
on a wide range of products.  As such it violated not  just the SPS Agreement, but also Article XI of 
the GATT.  Argentina echoed the concerns expressed by the United States and Canada. 
342. The European Communities noted the absence of procedures at the international level for 
approval of these types of products.  The European  Communities was following closely the work of 
the Codex ad hoc Taskforce on Biotechnology.  Consid erable efforts had been made to put together a 
consistent body of legislation to set up an authorization procedure for products resulting from 
biotechnology, with the aim of giving the producer legal certainty and transparency.  The newly 
established EC Food Safety Authority was responsib le for risk assessment and risk communication, 
but further time was needed to complete work by the European Parliament and the member States. 
343. In June 2002, the United States indicated their fru stration with the situation and noted that it 
was considering what steps to pursue.  Canada ob served that the EC moratorium essentially operated 
as a ban on imports of certain products for over four years, without any scientific basis.  The 
moratorium resulted in trade disruptions and discrimination based on pr oduction methods without 
regard to the assessment of risks.  Canada consider ed the EC moratorium to be inconsistent with the 
SPS Agreement and the GATT, and requested the Eu ropean Communities to put in place a science-
based approval process, as well as to consider alternative measures.  The European Communities 
replied that the matter was followi ng political procedures as previously  described.  At this time, the 
European Parliament was considering the matter, and the Council of Ministers should examine the 
documents in the coming months.  Internal pro cedures had to be followed to apply the proposed 
Directive. 
344. In November 2002, the United States stated that the EC moratorium had resulted in 
approximately 1 billion dollars loss of US exports  to the European Comm unities.  Even senior 
European Commission officials had publicly stated  that the moratorium was illegal.  The United 
States indicated that despite the recent adoption of EC Directive 01/18, the moratorium remained in 
place and trade continued to be blocked.  The United States was of the view that the Commission had the authority and the power to act in the face of this  illegal moratorium and it had chosen not to do so.  
The Commission's failure to take action on this i ssue was a matter of growing concern to the United 
States.  Canada shared the concerns expressed by the United States and regretted the inability of the 
European authorities to take steps to ensure that EC  member States met their SPS obligations.  Canada 
called upon the European Communities to lift the moratorium as soon as possible. 
345. Australia supported the views expressed by the United States and Canada about the lack of 
scientific basis for the EC moratorium.  Australia was also concerned about the EC related proposals 
on genetically modified food and feed, and the tr aceability and labelling of genetically modified 
organisms (GMOs).  Australia requested further in formation as to whether the European Communities 
had conducted a science-based risk assessment for its traceability regulations or based its measure on 
an international standard.  The European Communities had confirmed in their previous responses that 
the research undertaken had confirmed that those GM  foods and GM plants and derived products so 
far developed and marketed following usual risk as sessment procedures had not shown any new risk 
to human health or the environment, beyond the us ual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding, or 
risks that were likely to put in danger the chosen level of health or environmental protection in the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 90  
 
  European Communities.  Given this explanation, Aust ralia requested further clarification as to how, in 
the absence of an identifiable risk to human h ealth, the proposed traceability system met SPS 
requirements. 
346. The Philippines shared the concerns expr essed by the United States and reiterated his 
country's position regarding traceability of GMOs.  The Philippines noted that the European 
Communities had failed to demonstrate any scientific  evidence that GMOs were not as safe as their 
conventional counterparts, and that there were not less trade restrictive measu res available to manage 
the risk. 
347. The European Communities noted that the Co mmission and the EC member States remained 
determined to put in place a regulatory framework to allow GMO and GM products to be marketed 
freely within the European Commun ities and noted that the progress had been made in that respect.  
The European Communities requested patience an d understanding on this very sensitive dossier 
which was being dealt with at the highest  level within the European Communities. 
 
GUATEMALA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY GUATEMALA 
Animal Health 210. Restrictions on imports of chicken meat  
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1,  paras. 28-29), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
paras. 27-29), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43,  paras. 148-149), February 2007 
(G/SPS/R/44, paras. 142-143) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
348. In March 2005, Mexico recalled that his c ountry had raised a concern on Guatemala's 
restrictions on imports of chicken meat.  Progress towards a solution to the problem had been made 
recently and Mexico would continue to monitor the is sue bilaterally and in the context of the Regional 
Organization for Agricultural Health (OIRSA).  Guatemala confirmed its willingness to continue working on this issue with Mexico. 
349. In June 2006, Mexico noted c ontinuing problems related to Guatemala's import prohibition on 
poultry meat products and sub-products (including eggs).  The long delays with which Guatemala's 
Ministry of Agriculture (MAGA) had responded to  the multiple requests for importation of such 
products from Mexico violated the timeframes established by Guatemal an authorities.  In April 2005, 
Mexico had sent MAGA the model zoosanitary certif icates for approval, acco mpanied by information 
on avian diseases in Mexico.  Although in Nove mber 2005, during a meeting of a bilateral SPS 
technical expert group, Guatemalan authorities ha d committed to carry out a risk assessment and 
provide a response, no response had yet been receive d.  During January and February 2006, Mexico  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 91 
 
 
  had asked Guatemala to remove restrictions impo sed in response to an alleged outbreak of low 
pathogenic avian influenza, taking into account OIE guidance.  At the same time, Mexico requested 
information on Guatemala's avian influenza situati on in order to open Mexico's market for poultry 
products from Guatemala.  Bilateral meetings  had been held in the margins of the 34th meeting of the 
SPS Committee.  In June 2006, Mexico had received a communication from MAGA indicating that 
due to the difference in sanitary status between the two countries, Guatemala would not lift its import 
restrictions on poultry products and sub-products from Mexico.  At the same time, Guatemala 
declined to respond to Mexico's questionnaire on Gu atemala's avian influenza situation.  Mexico 
considered that Guatemala's actions violated th e OIE Code and the SPS Agreement, and hoped that 
Guatemala would soon respond to Mexico's request s, allowing trade of poultry products and sub-
products between both countries. 
350. The European Communities indicated that exports  from EC member States to Guatemala had 
been disrupted because of avian influenza con cerns.  The European Communities emphasized that 
such measures should be proportional to the risk, ta king into account Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  
The European Communities intended to  pursue the issue bilaterally. 
351. Guatemala indicated it would work bilaterally to resolve the issue related to EC exports. 
352. In October 2006, Mexico reported that althoug h it had taken various measures at bilateral 
level to reach a solution, Guatemala continued to be  in breach of its obligation under Articles 5 and 6 
of the SPS Agreement.  Mexico requested Guatemala to suspend the restrictions imposed on Mexican 
poultry imports. 
353. Guatemala indicated that a meeting of the technical bodies of both Members was to be held 
on 17-18 October 2006, where an analysis of the situa tion would be made.  At the meeting, the health 
situation of both countries, domestic quarantine m easures and the situation regarding avian influenza 
were to be reviewed.  Guatemal a was hopeful that the meeting would enable technicians from both 
parties to reach a satisfactory solution. 
354. In February 2007, Mexico reported that despite several bilateral meeti ngs seeking an end to 
Guatemala's restrictions imposed due to low pat hogenic avian influenza, there had still been no 
response from the Guatemalan Ministry of Agricultur e.  These restrictions were not in line with the 
OIE Code.  Mexico had requested that Guatemala u ndertake verification visits, but had not received a 
satisfactory reply. 
355. Guatemala confirmed that following technical meetings and discussions of the sanitary status 
of both countries, it had agreed to undertake visits to check controls in Mexi co.  Unfortunately, due to 
budgetary constraints, these visits had not yet been possible, and further delays had occurred due to 
changes in the head of the relevant departme nt.  However, Guatemala remained committed to 
resolving this issue. 
 
Plant Health 
211. Restrictions on the transit of avocados  
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 28-29) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 92  
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
356. In March 2005, Mexico observed that Guatemal a had imposed restrictions on the transit of 
avocados.  Progress had been made recently in fi nding a solution to the problem, and Mexico would 
monitor the issue bilaterally and in the context of  the Regional Organization for Agricultural Health 
(OIRSA).  Guatemala confirmed its willingness to  continue working on this issue with Mexico. 
 HONDURAS CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS Food safety 9. Zero-tolerance for salmone lla in imported poultry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Slovak Republic [See Item 9, page 32] 
 
Animal Health 145. Import restrictions on chicken meat imports 
Raised by: Costa Rica 
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, Thailand 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,  paras. 22-27), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 63-64) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1, G/SPS/GEN/362, G/SPS/GEN/363, 
G/SPS/N/HND/3, G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1 and Add.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
357. Costa Rica reported that in March 2002, Hondur as had applied import restrictions on poultry 
meat from Costa Rica, admitting imports of poultry meat only from countries that were free from avian influenza, avian infectious laryngotracheitis , Newcastle disease and avian salmonellosis.  Costa 
Rica recognized Honduras' efforts to improve its sanitary situation, but questioned whether the 
measure was scientifically justified and whether Hondur as had carried out a relevant risk analysis.  In 
this regard, it would be to the benefit of all if  Honduras shared its scientific evidence with other 
members of the organization.  Honduras was trying to  reverse the burden by insisting that Costa Rica 
demonstrate its disease-free status regarding these four avian diseases.  Costa Rica's avian health status was in line with the parameters recognized by the OIE, and its poultry meat exports did not 
constitute a risk for the avian health status of Honduras.  Costa Rica requested Honduras to respond to 
the questions contained in G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1 and requested that Honduras lift the measure.  
Argentina, Chile and Thailand supported the con cerns expressed by Costa Rica.  Chile requested  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 93 
 
 
  information from the OIE on this issue, in partic ular concerning standards for the transmission of 
different avian diseases through fresh poultry meat.  Chile also requested a copy of the risk 
assessment carried out by Honduras. 
358. Honduras explained the background to his count ry's decision to impose restrictions on 
chicken meat imports from Costa Rica.  The Agricu lture and Livestock Secretariat had developed a 
national programme for the prevention, control and eradication of avian diseases, including avian 
influenza, avian infectious laryngotracheitis, Ne wcastle disease and avian salmonellosis.  This 
programme had been notified to all WTO member s (G/SPS/N/HND/3).  In October 2001, Honduras 
had notified that it had achieved free status for the four avian diseases mentioned above.  Honduras 
had requested that Costa Rica, as well as other co untries, provide the necessary documentation that 
guaranteed equivalence between the exporting countr y's avian health status, as well as access for 
technical experts to carry out the relevant inspecti ons.  His authorities had not been able to determine 
that the poultry health programmes of Costa Rica we re equivalent because they had been unable to 
carry out the relevant inspections and obtain th e necessary technical information requested from Costa 
Rica.  The scientific evidence re quested by Costa Rica was contained in the OIE Bulletin, N°6, 
pages 810 to 815, and Honduras welcomed the updating of standards by the OIE. 
359. The representative of the OIE stated that OIE standards existed for avian infectious 
laryngotracheitis, avian salmonellosis, and Newcas tle disease, and for the highly pathogenic form 
only of avian influenza.  The OIE standards fo r avian infectious laryngotracheitis and avian 
salmonellosis contained recommendations only for live  birds, for day-old chicks, and for hatching 
eggs but no recommendations  for poultry meat.  In other words, at present there were no official OIE 
standards for poultry meat for these two diseases, how ever these chapters had not been reviewed for 
some time.  The lack of a standard concerning poultr y meat could mean either that there were no risks 
associated with trade in poultry meat for these dise ases, or that the OIE had not come out with a 
recommendation on poultry meat which meant that tr ading partners would be expected to negotiate 
between themselves using risk analysis in order to reach science based conclusions.  In the absence of 
an official OIE standard, the OIE had replied to a re quest from the Director of Animal Health in Costa 
Rica that there was no scientific evidence indicating th at avian infectious laryngotracheitis or avian 
salmonellosis could be transmitted thro ugh poultry meat.  This was not an official OIE standard but a 
scientific opinion from the OIE.  If there was suffici ent trade disruption due to the lack of an OIE 
standard for poultry meat for these diseases, the OIE would include updating these standards in its 
future work programme. 
360. In April 2003, Costa Rica noted that bilateral consultations were progressing 
(G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1/Add.1).  Honduras reported th at after the November 2002 meeting of the SPS 
Committee, an agreement was reached on how to progress towards re-establishing trade of poultry 
meat and products from Costa Rica. 
 INDIA CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA Food safety 200. Ban on food grade wax 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 38-39) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 94  
 
  Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
361. The United States stated that on 13 August 2003, India's Ministry of Health and Family 
Welfare published gazette notification GSR 656 am ending the 1955 Prevention of Food Adulteration 
Act by prohibiting the sale of fresh fruits and vegetabl es coated with waxes, mineral oils and colours.  
This amendment threatened US horticultural exports to India and was not notified to the WTO.  The 
new requirements exceeded those of the Codex and were adopted without scientific justification.  
Furthermore, the long shipping journey to India's ports meant that the export of US fruits and 
vegetables without waxing was not a viable alternat ive.  Waxing was an essential treatment required 
to maintain shelf life.  India was requested to no tify this measure to the WTO so that Members could 
have the opportunity to comment on the regulations. 
362. India replied that the measure in question ha d earlier been published in draft form in the 
Ministry of Health notification GSR 852 on 30 Dece mber 2002, inviting comments from all interested 
parties.  The current measure was in force due to  increasing incidents of the use of unsafe wax and 
adulteration of food with harmful chemicals.  This was also a problem with domestic food traders and 
vendors.  This issue of wax coating of fruits and vegetables was being examined by an expert group 
under the auspices of the Ministry of Health. 
 
240. Biotech labelling and import approval process regulations 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Brazil, Canada 
Dates raised: June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/IND/17, G/TBT/N/IND/12 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
363. In June 2006, the United States referred to India's notifications to the TBT Committee 
affecting trade in biotechnology products.  The Ministry of Commerce and Industry's "Supplement to the Government of India's Foreign Trade Policy,  Condition 18" (G/TBT/N/IND/17) would require 
that its Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (G EAC) provide pre-approval of imports.  The 
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's proposed  mandatory labelling requirement for biotechnology 
products (G/TBT/N/IND/12) would also require pr e-approval by the GEAC.  The United States 
requested that these measures be notified to the SPS Committee to allow an opportunity for comments 
and that their implementation be delayed until a number of issues could be resolved.  In particular, the United States was concerned about:  the lack of cl arity with regard to the scope and process of the 
proposed measures and their scientific justificatio n;  what procedures would be in place for pre-
approval of imports and once approved;  what pro cedures would be in place domestically and at the 
ports for enforcement;  and what was the scope and the justification to require that the process of  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 95 
 
 
  production be included on the label.  Without clar ification of these questions, US exports to India 
would be negatively affected. 
364. Argentina, Brazil and Canada shared the con cerns raised by United States and asked that 
Members be given an opportunity to comment on the measures before their adoption.  Canada 
indicated that it would provide comments on the releva nt TBT notifications and also invited India to 
notify its measures to the SPS Committee and take  into account comments of other Members. 
365. India took note of the concerns raised a nd stressed that the proposed regulation on pre-
approvals was not new as it had already been notified in 1989.  The purpose of the current proposal was to make the requirements mandatory.  The obj ective of the mandatory labelling requirement was 
to provide correct information to consumers about the nature of the food.  India was committed to 
following the transparency requirements and would consider notifying the relevant measures to the 
SPS Committee and would take into account commen ts received before the measures entered into 
force. 
 
253. Export certification requirements for dairy products  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, pa ras. 19-20), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, 
paras. 27-28) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
366. In June 2007, the United States stated that  India had imposed a number of certification 
requirements on imported dairy products that were  trade prohibitive and lacked any scientific 
justification.  These requirements also raised qu estions regarding national treatment.  There was a 
long history with over 40 years of exports of US dairy products to India with no  reported violations of 
Indian safety standards.  Although the United Stat es had proposed certificate language to India in 
October 2006, no progress had been made towards the resolution of this problem. 
367. India observed that the protocol in place in I ndia established limits for contaminants that were 
in accordance with Codex standards.  Indian authorities were still studying the US comments on 
India's protocol for dairy products. 
368. In October 2007, the United States expressed con cern that India maintained more stringent 
maximum residue levels (MRLs) on imported dairy products than it did for domestic products, raising 
serious questions regarding India's adherence to it s international obligations.  In October 2006, the 
United States had proposed a health certificate attesti ng that US milk and milk products were fit for 
human consumption.  However, India had refused  to accept the certificate, highlighting concerns 
regarding US action levels for dair y products.  Bilateral technical m eeting had been held in May 2007 
to discuss the issue and the United States submitted various supporting documents as requested by the 
Indian experts, but no response was received.  A dditionally, the United States had requested bilateral 
health discussions with the Indian technical expert s, but no response had been received.  The United G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 96  
 
  States urged India to reconsider its October 2006 ce rtification proposal and also requested India to 
formally and comprehensively respond to the proposal and subsequent requests. 
369. India indicated that a health protocol for dair y products had been in place since 2006 and that 
it applied to all dairy products being exported to Indi a.  Various dairy products from the United States 
were currently being imported as per the existing protocol.  The sanitary certification for India 
proscribed limits of contaminan ts in accordance with Codex standa rds, and India's standards for 
contaminants in domestic dairy products were also in line with Codex standards for the majority of 
contaminants and even higher for some.  The additional information provided on the USDA 
Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) Pesticide Data  Program and on the test results of pesticides 
in milk samples were being currently examined by  technical experts.  Regarding the US proposed 
certificate, India had analyzed the action level of certain contaminants cited in the US document and 
found that they were less strict than the Codex standards.  In a recent high level meeting, it was 
decided that the United States would send a team of technical experts to India.  During a bilateral meeting, just prior to the SPS Committee meeti ng, the United States had asked for certain 
clarifications.  This request would be conve yed to India's technical experts in capital. 
 
Animal Health 
61. Import restrictions on bovine semen 
Raised by: Canada, European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 19, G/SPS/R/18, paras. 23-25), June 2000 
(G/SPS/R/19, paras. 24-25), Novemb er 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 18-22), 
March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 40-43), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 51), 
April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 76-77) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/113 
Solution: Change of relevant regulations and expected solution reported in July 2001 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
370. In March 1999, the European Communities indi cated that bilateral contact with India 
regarding import restrictions on bo vine semen had not been successful, and submitted a list of specific 
questions.  In March 2000, the European Communitie s reported that no information had been received 
from India, although there had been some bilatera l and multilateral contacts.  India presented some 
information to the EC delegate at that time. 
371. In March 2000, Canada expressed concern that  India was banning imports of bovine semen 
from Canada because of BSE concerns, although Ca nada was BSE-free, and although BSE was not 
transmissible through semen according to the OIE.  India clarified that the measure was a licensing 
process, not a ban, which had been imposed to avoi d inadvertent introduction of BSE or scrapie into 
India.  India had prepared a questionnaire for its tr ading partners and was planning to carry out a risk 
assessment based on the responses.  The representative of India indicated that he would bring the 
Canadian concerns to the attention of his authoriti es in order to solve the problem bilaterally as soon 
as possible.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 97 
 
 
  372. In June 2000, Canada informed the Committee that bilateral consultations had failed to 
resolve the matter, and that India continued to r estrict Canadian exports of bovine semen despite 
(i) Canada being BSE-free, (ii) OIE confirmation that BSE was not transmissible through semen, 
(iii) the OIE specifically not calling for restrictions on  trade in bovine semen, and (iv) the absence of a 
risk assessment to justify India's ban on bovine se men.  Canada asked that India remove this 
restriction.  India noted that recent bilateral consu ltations had been helpful and that efforts were being 
made to find a solution to the dispute. 
373. In November 2000, Canada, supported by the Eu ropean Communities, reiterated its concerns 
regarding India's BSE-related restrictions on bovi ne semen imports, despite  Canada's BSE freedom, 
and despite agreement in the OIE and other veteri nary bodies that BSE was not transmitted by semen.  
In September 2000, India had indicated that it intende d to continue this unjustified prohibition, despite 
the lack of risk assessment for the measure.  Indi a reported that detailed bila teral consultations were 
ongoing.  The Indian Animal Husbandry Commi ssion had met on 11 September 2000 and had noted 
the findings of the EC Scientific Steering Committe e (SSC) regarding the difficulty of making precise 
estimates of the risks of infectivity of various products including semen. 
374. India further reported that it had sought detaile d information from the OIE regarding the basis 
for determining that BSE was not transmitted by sem en, as well as information on the criteria for 
determining if a country or zone was free from BSE.   However, to date no reply had been received 
from the OIE. 
375. The European Communities observed that India was referring to a scientific opinion which 
had been published in 1998, which had subsequently been modified through various meetings of the 
OIE.  The representative of the OIE indicated that the issue of bovine semen had been examined on 
various occasions at the OIE, and the results of these examinations had been provided to India, 
however, the OIE would again send India all of the relevant information. 
376. In March 2001, Canada and India announced that  they had agreed to informal discussions 
under the SPS Agreement and hoped that the matter would be resolved soon.   Canada recalled the 
OIE statement confirming that BSE could not be transmitted by semen (G/SPS/GEN/230).  India 
stressed that it was not trying to give an unfair a dvantage to domestic producers.  The socio-religious 
conditions related to the treatment of cows in India were such that India had to be extremely cautious.  
India asked Canada to cooperate with India's risk assessment, which would ta ke at least another six 
months to complete.  Canada questioned the need to  carry out the risk assessment, since according to 
the OIE there was no risk of disease transmission thr ough semen.  India and Canada intended to raise 
the issue at the OIE. 
377. In July 2001, Canada reported that it was e ngaged in bilateral consultations under the SPS 
Agreement with India.  There had been certain positive developments and Canada hoped to quickly 
resolve the issue.  India indicated that the relevant  regulations had been cha nged, and that the changes 
would soon be notified. 
378. In April 2003, Canada stated that although a successful conclusion had been reported to the 
Committee in July 2001, a further problem had b een encountered and an import license request was 
rejected by India due to some apparent conn ection between BSE and bovine semen.  Canada 
questioned the scientific basis for the action and stated that the OIE's recommendations supported 
Canada's view.  Canada requested that India remove this restriction.  India agreed to convey Canada's 
concerns to the appropriate authorities. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 98  
 
  62. Restrictions on imports of horses 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para . 20), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 22-
24) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/112 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
379. In March 1999, the European Communities indicat ed that trade in horses with India had been 
interrupted, although the necessary health guarantees had not been identified.  Import restrictions were 
based on the presence of contagious equine metriti s.  The European Comm unities presented a series 
of questions to India, including a request for justif ication of India's measure which was more stringent 
than the OIE Code. 
380. In October 2006, the European Communities agai n raised concerns regarding India's import 
conditions for live horses from some EC member St ates on the basis of Contagious Equine Metritis 
(CEM).  India's requirements that allowed only for the importation of breeding horses from countries which had been free of CEM for a minimum of thr ee years was not based on international standards 
and recommendations, in particular Article 2.5.1.1 of  the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code which 
set conditions of live horses to be exported safely in respect of CEM.  India had not provided any 
scientific justification for import requirements cont aining higher protection measures than reflected in 
international standards, and thus was not complyin g with Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.  Despite 
numerous bilateral discussions on the issue during 2005 and 2006, no progr ess had been made.  No 
response had been received to a document submitte d by the United Kingdom in January 2006 with 
further scientific evidence that ex port of breading horses from that country posed no risk for the 
Indian equine population.  The European Communiti es urged India to bring their import requirements 
for CEM in line with OIE recommendations. 
381. India stated that it allowed the import of live horses, including breeding horses, under existing 
health protocols.  Although it was free from CEM,  India allowed imports of male horses less than 
seven years of age and female horses less than five years of age.  India indicated that some CEM-
positive countries in the European region were regular ly exporting live horses to India.  With regard 
to the OIE guidelines, consultation with the releva nt technical experts was being done and a report on 
the issue was expected very soon.  India was willing to discuss the issue bilate rally with the European 
Communities. 
382. The European Communities stressed the fact that  some EC member States were experiencing 
restrictions on the export of live horses to India, and welcomed the opportunity for further bilateral 
discussions. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 99 
 
 
  Plant Health 
186. Phytosanitary import restrictions 
Raised by: United States, European Communities 
Supported by: Canada, Chile, New Zealand, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 23-31), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 22-24), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 45-46) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IND/12 and Add.1 
Solution: Amendments to Plant Quarantine Order 2003 regarding solid wood 
packaging 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
383. The United States expressed concerns over India's new fumigation requirements which 
entered into force on 1 January and 6 February 2004.   These regulations were not notified to the WTO 
until 4 March 2004 as G/SPS/N/IND/12 and Members did not have an oppor tunity to provide 
comments.  With respect to almonds, phoshpine had b een an effective treatment to control pests of 
concern to India prior to the imposition of the new regulations.  This treatment was supported by 
scientific literature that had been presented to India for examination.  India was requested to revise its 
measures accordingly.  With regards to solid wood packing, India's measures deviated substantially 
from international standard ISPM 15, particularly  in relation to requirements for phytosanitary 
documentation and the lack of scientific justification for treatment requirements.  Under the new regulation, both the consignment and packing mate rial were to be treated and by implication, 
untreated consignments, or those without phytosan itary certification would not be allowed to enter 
India.  Furthermore, India's requirement that packi ng material be treated with methyl bromide for 32 
hours exceeded ISPM 15 requirement of 16 hours.  India was requested to provide scientific justification for this divergence or  revise its measures accordingly. 
384. The European Communities rejected India's claim that these measures conformed to 
international standards and therefore did not have to be notified.  The lapse of two months in notifying 
the WTO after implementation of the measures deni ed countries the opportunity to comment on them.  
The European Communities requested India to defe r the implementation of the new measures until the 
normal 60-day comment period expired.  Canada sh ared the concern about the lack of adequate 
comment period and stated that Canada became aw are of the new requirements when its pulse exports 
to India were rejected.  India had temporarily agreed to accept Canadian pulse shipments without 
fumigation until 30 April 2004.  However, India's re fusal to consider alternatives to fumigation 
treatment was unacceptable, given that Canada's climate made fumigation unnecessary.  Furthermore, Canada had been free of the relevant pests for 20 years and had been shipping products to India for 
several years without problems.  Canada urged Indi a to use the least trade-restrictive measures as 
stipulated in the SPS Agreement.  Chile and Ne w Zealand shared the concerns expressed by the 
previous countries above, particularly those rela ted to certification requirements and the lack of 
adequate comment period. 
385. India explained that the Plant Quarantine Order was intended to simplify India's existing plant 
quarantine regime, which previously had multiple instruments, including the Destructive Insect and 
Pest Act of 1914 and Order 1989 regulating imports of cotton, plants, fruits and seeds into India.  The 
new Order repealed and replaced th ese instruments and filled a gap in  the old plant quarantine orders, 
particularly related to emerging global agricultural trade issues such as GMOs, germplasm, transgenic 
plant material, live insects, fungi and bio-cont rol agents.  The Plant Quarantine Order of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 100  
 
  18 November 2003, came into force on 1 January 2004 and the application of some provisions 
deferred to 1 April 2004.  The regulations were ma de available on the website immediately after its 
publication and a number of India's trading partners had sought clarif ication bilaterally.  The Plant 
Quarantine Order was amended on 6 February 2004 to  increase clarity and take account of Member's 
concerns. 
386. With respect to the US concerns, phosphine fu migation was useful for quality control but was 
not an effective treatment against quarantine pests in  almonds.  Nevertheless, India agreed to examine 
the research papers presented by the United Stat es and requested that Members send their comments 
on the issue.  On the issue of so lid wood packing, India required treatment of the whole consignment 
if it contained agricultural produce but would accept treatment according to ISPM 15 otherwise.  
Phytosanitary certificates were required if the expor ting country had not followed ISPM 15 treatment 
requirements.  With regards to Canada's concerns , the new Order contained a temporary provision for 
the relaxation of specific conditions if problems ar ose in the clearance of consignments.  Canadian 
pulse consignments imported between 31 Decemb er 2003 and 30 April 2004 would be cleared and 
this decision was also extended to all trading part ners.  While the new regulations were based on 
scientific principles, India agreed to consider alte rnative measures proposed by Canada if they could 
be proven to be effective.  India had notifie d the WTO of these measures on 4 March 2004 and the 
final date for comment was 30 April 2004. 
387. In June 2004, the European Communities raised concerns about India's import restrictions 
related to plant quarantine.  Wh ile India had amended the wood p ackaging part of these measures and 
brought them into line with international standards,  concerns remained about a range of other existing 
measures that had negative trade impacts.  India ha d not produced scientific information to justify 
these measures.  The European Communities understood that according to India's regulatory approach in this area many types of products were banned be fore PRAs were conducted to determine if a ban 
was justified.  Since no international standards ex isted for many of the banned products, India should 
conduct a PRA prior to implementing a measure as  required by the SPS Agreement.  Canada, New 
Zealand and the United States echoed the EC concerns .  Both Canada and New Zealand stressed that 
Members had not had an opportunity to comment on these measures, and indicated that their authorities were engaged in bilateral discussions w ith India to seek a resolution to this issue. 
388. India stated that it had delayed implemen tation of these measures until the comments on 
G/SPS/N/IND/12 could be considered.  The Mini stry of Agriculture had also discussed the 
phytosanitary concerns of other Members on a bilate ral basis, and in some cases had provided short-
term solutions to the issues.  For example, India had accepted all import consignments of plant and 
plant materials until 30 June 2004 to provide ample adjustment period to exporting Members.  Some 
of the provisions of the Plant Quarantine Order 2003 had already been amended, including those on 
treatment of solid wood packaging materials, and these amendments had been notified to the 
Secretariat. 
389. In October 2004, the United States recalled th at India's requirements for methyl bromide 
fumigation for numerous products from the United Stat es was raised in the l ast Committee meeting.  
The fumigation requirements were adopted in No vember 2003, but were notified only in January 
2004, two months after the measure had come into fo rce.  Bilateral discussions  were held with India 
where it was agreed that US al monds would be allowed under the previous import requirements until 
June 2005.  Phosphine was a proven and effectiv e treatment for quarantine and storage pests 
associated with almonds.  Nonetheless, the United St ates was conducting further research to develop 
long-term solutions to address India's concerns.  India replied that the United States had provided 
information and data on the efficacy of phosphine as a fumigant.  However, until field data was 
available, US almonds would be allowed into I ndia subject to fumigation at the port of entry. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 101 
 
 
  Other concerns 
192. Non-notification of various SPS measures 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, New Z ealand, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, pa ras. 52-54), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 80-82), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 69-70), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 48-50) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/R/33 (paras. 23-31) 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
390. In June 2004, the United States indicated that India's non-notification, or late notification, of 
SPS measures  had created unnecessary trade disruptions  and an uncertain environment for trade.  
India was requested to comply with obligations  under the SPS Agreement by notifying all its SPS 
measures to the WTO and providing a reasonable peri od of time for Members to review and comment 
on the notifications.  Australia, the European Co mmunities and New Zealand shared the concerns 
raised by the United States.  India stated that it att ached great importance to th e issue of transparency.  
With respect to India's Plant Qu arantine Order 2003, statements had already been provided to the 
European Communities and the issue had been discu ssed at the March Committee meeting.  India had 
notified the measure on 4 March 2004 with a 60-day comment period and had ensured that trade was 
not restricted because of the lack of timeliness of the notification. 
391. In October 2004, the United States expressed continued concern over India's non-notification 
of measures which created uncertainty among US exporters.  India was requested to notify its SPS measures and to allow a reasonable period of time for comment.  The European Communities shared the concerns of the United States and at the sa me time urged all Members to notify their SPS 
measures.  A bilateral meeting had been held with India and the European Communities were 
optimistic of improvements in India's transparency ob ligations.  India stated that it would ensure that 
it complied with its obligations. 
392. In March 2005, the United States again expressed concern regarding India's non-compliance 
with its transparency obligations under the SPS Agreement and requested India to suspend the 
implementation of measures on dairy products and pet food until a WTO notification was made available and a reasonable time provided to Members for their review and comment.  The European 
Communities shared the concerns of the United States.   India stated that it would take the necessary 
steps to notify SPS requirements as soon as possible. 
393. In June 2005, the United States noted that a lthough India had improved its coordination on 
SPS issues, some Indian departments continued to note notify SPS measures implemented.  The United States requested that India notify new a nd revised food regulations and import conditions. 
394. The European Communities noted that it had also been adversely affected by India's lack of 
notification of some SPS rules governing imports of agricultural products.  Progress in terms of transparency had been limited to the phytosanitary sector;  legislation governing animal health and 
production were not systematically notified. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 102  
 
  395. India explained that it had recently notified th e establishment of three separate enquiry points 
with clearly delineated responsibilities.  These e fforts had achieved greater coordination among 
agencies, as demonstrated by the number of recent no tifications that had been submitted at an early 
stage in the development of the regulation and with a due period for comments. 
 INDONESIA CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA 
Food safety 146. Ban on hormones in animal production  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Mexico 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 83-86) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IND/17 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
396. The United States indicated that the implementa tion of this regulation would effectively ban 
the use of several growth hormones and there was no scientific evidence to support this measure.  US 
regulatory agencies had been conducting research si nce the 1950s on the use and safety of approved 
growth hormones.  A consensus had been reached re garding the safety of these hormones if used with 
good veterinary practices.  The United States request ed Indonesia to put forward scientific data in 
support of its proposed ban.  In the event that no scientific data existed, the United States requested 
Indonesia to reconsider this proposal as soon as possible. 
397. Canada, supported by Australia and Mexico , expressed concerns regarding Indonesia's 
apparent import ban on live cattle and beef derived from cattle treated with synthetic growth 
hormones.  A number of questions surrounding th e risk-based nature of these measures were 
highlighted, particularly given the precedence est ablished in the WTO regarding measures prohibiting 
growth hormones.  They requested Indonesia to i ndicate whether it had conducted a risk assessment 
and to provide the details of the risk based ra tional for its measures.  The European Communities 
noted that there was a WTO finding on the issue and that it intended to bring its legislation into compliance with the ruling of the panel.  Much wo rk had been undertaken in this regard and the 
European Communities expected to soon be able to en sure that the EC ban was fully compatible with 
the WTO. 
398. Indonesia noted that his country had not yet im plemented the regulation, but had notified to 
Members the fact that they were going to amend the decree concerning classification of veterinary drugs.  Although Indonesia had not yet banned horm one growth promoters, there were some reasons 
to believe that growth hormones c ould be hazardous to human health, due in part to the fact that 
developed countries' consumption patterns were differe nt to those in Indonesia.  Indonesia further 
noted that the use of hormone growth promoter s in poultry had been banned internationally.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 103 
 
 
   
Animal Health 
111. FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 92-93 (see Item 132), October 2003 
(G/SPS/R/31, paras. 35-36), June 2 004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 34-35), 
October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 53- 55), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 48-49), June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras 175-176) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/240 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
399. In October 2001, Argentina noted it had raised concerns about Indonesia's FMD restrictions 
on certain products.  Although Indonesia had informed  Argentina that certain products had been re-
classified, the changes had not been implemente d and Argentina was still unable to export the 
products concerned, mainly vegetables and corn.  In donesia stated that the ban on Argentine corn had 
been lifted as of August 2001.  Indonesia looked forward to holding further bilateral discussions. 
400. In October 2003, Argentina recalled that I ndonesian restrictions went beyond the OIE 
recommendations (G/SPS/GEN/240) and included products not affected by FMD, i.e., cereals.  Argentina requested Indonesia to provide scientific  evidence to justify the measures or else lift the 
measures.  Argentina had provided documentation in an  informal bilateral meeting with Indonesia and 
proposed a visit of experts to resolve the issue.  Indonesia stated that FMD was a serious risk as 
Indonesia was free of the disease.  The ban was periodically evaluated and could be temporary.  A visit by experts from Indonesia was being consider ed.  Progress on this issue was being made in 
consultations with Argentina and the Committee would be informed. 
401. In June 2004, Argentina stated that Argentine bovine meat continued to be prohibited despite 
having made several requests to Indonesia's veterinary service.  Indonesia required that bovine products come from areas free from FMD for the past twelve months, and where vaccination had not been carried out in the previous  three consecutive years.  These measures went beyond official OIE 
recommendations.  Indonesia had not provided any scientific evidence to support these restrictive 
measures.  Indonesia noted that the matter had been discussed in bilateral meetings with Argentina.  
The importation of ruminants and ruminant products from countries with endemic status or FMD-free 
with vaccination was prohibited pending further deci sions by the Indonesian expert commissions of 
veterinary public health and animal health. 
402. In October 2004, Argentina reported that I ndonesia continued to prohibit imports of 
Argentine beef.  Indonesia was requested to comp ly with OIE recommendations or submit a risk 
analysis to justify its measures.  Brazil shared Ar gentina's concerns.  Indonesia had prohibited imports 
of soybean and soybean products from FMD-free areas with vaccination in Brazil.  Indonesia's 
measures were inconsistent with OIE guidelines and recommendations and Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 104  
 
  403. Indonesia explained that any country wishing to export to Indonesia must be free of FMD and 
rinderpest as stipulated in the Indonesian Minist ry of Agriculture Decree 1992.  Countries meeting 
these requirements were allowed to export to Indonesi a.  With respect to Argentina, imports were 
allowed when Argentina was decl ared FMD-free in 2000.  However,  imports were suspended when 
there was an outbreak of the disease.  Argentina a nd Brazil had not been declared FMD-free without 
vaccination by the OIE.  The same conditions al so applied to soybean and soybean products and 
imports would be allowed into Indonesia on ce the outbreaks were brought under control. 
404. In March 2005, Argentina argued that Indonesia' s restrictions were inconsistent with 
Articles 2.2, 5.1 and 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.  Not only did Indonesia's requirements exceed the 
provisions of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of  the OIE, but they were even less justified now 
that Argentina had recovered its status of free from FMD with vaccination in the region north of 
latitude 42°.  Indonesia noted that it had submitted a protocol for the approval and inspection of 
exports of meat products from Argentina and was waiting for the response from Argentina. 
405. In June 2005, Argentina recalled that Indonesia's requirement that the country of origin had 
been FMD-free for at least 12 months prior to sh ipment, and had not vaccinated against the disease in 
three years, exceeded the OIE Code , especially as Argentina had regained its FMD-free status.  Brazil 
reported similar experienced problems with export s of meat and meat products to Indonesia.  
Indonesia indicated the concerns would be forwarded to the relevant authorities. 
406. In February 2006, Argentina noted that Indon esian health authorities had been invited to 
inspect the entire Argentine production chain for meat .  Brazil noted that restrictions remained on 
products such as heat-processed meats, although the technology protected the product from FMD 
infection. 
407. Indonesia clarified that it had a policy of maxi mum security for imported products of animal 
origin based on two criteria, animal health and vete rinary public health.  The overall objective was to 
maintain Indonesia's status as a country free from all major diseases such as FMD and BSE, and to 
protect consumers' health and spiritual comfort through assuring the safety of animals distributed in 
Indonesia.  Indonesia undertook on site reviews of potential exporters in order to collect direct and 
detailed information as a prerequisite for import au thorization.  In December 2005, Indonesia had 
notified Argentina of its intention to visit Arge ntina in order to undertake an on site review. 
 
244. Importation of live animals and meat products 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, New Zealand 
Dates raised: October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, pa ras. 17-21), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, 
paras. 30-31) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/30 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
408. In October 2006, Brazil expressed concern rega rding Indonesia's Government Regulation 
82/2000 applicable to quarantine import procedur es for animals and related products.  Brazil noted 
that Regulation 82/2000 did not comply with the regionalization provisions of Article 6 of the SPS  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 105 
 
 
  Agreement or with Chapter 1.3.5 of the OIE Territo rial Animal Health Code as it did not take into 
account the sanitary characteristics of the areas fro m which the products originated, but required the 
whole territory of an exporting country to be free of any diseases that were not present in Indonesia.  As a result of Indonesia's regulation, Brazil was frequently facing import restrictions on a broad 
variety of its products on the basis of the food-a nd-mouth disease (FMD), even from FMD-free zones.  
In particular, there was no scientific justificati on for import restrictions on goods which could not 
under any circumstance transmit the FMD agent, m eat products submitted to treatments which were 
internationally recognized as capable  of inactivating the FMD virus, and restrictions on heat-treated 
vegetable products.  These unjustified import restri ctions resulted in huge financial losses.  Brazil 
urged Indonesia to adopt national protection levels  based on risk assessments, taking into account the 
relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement and OIE standards. 
409. Argentina, Australia and New Zealand expressed similar concerns regarding Indonesia's draft 
Regulation (G/SPS/N/IDN/30) on the importation of meat  products.  They indicated their intentions to 
submit comments on the draft regulation before the comment deadline.  Argentina urged Indonesia to 
adjust its risk analysis to the OIE standards, while New Zealand further noted that Indonesia had not 
indicated in its notification when the draft Decree might be adopted.  They encouraged Indonesia to 
work with other Members to address their c oncerns before adopting the draft Decree. 
410. Indonesia reported that with regards to the importation of live anim als and meat products, 
Indonesia had been conducting a review of its legi slation and would soon notify to the WTO a new 
decree on import of meat of various types of species.  The new regulation replaced the existing regulation (Decree 745/1992) on the requirements fo r meat importation.  One of the eventual 
requirements for countries to be eligible to e xport meat and meat products intended for human 
consumption to Indonesia was their FMD-free status .  Recognition of the disease-free status would be 
based on an OIE declaration.  A further require ment for FMD-free countries to export meat to 
Indonesia would be a desk audit and on-site audit to be carried out by the Director General of 
Livestock Services (DGLS).  In relation to animal importation, existing regulations would remain in 
effect. 
411. With regards to BSE, Indonesia stated that the requirements for the importation of live 
ruminants and ruminant products from countries or z ones declared as negligible BSE risk by the OIE 
had been set out in a new decree.  In principle, under the new regulation, live ruminants and ruminant 
products from countries or zones declared as negligib le BSE risk by the OIE were allowed to be 
imported to Indonesia.  Imports of meat and meat products from BSE-risk countries were prohibited.  
However, there were exceptions that included meat and meat products originating from de-boned 
meat as specified in Article 2.3.1.3.1 of OIE Code .  The additional requirements to export meat and 
meat products to Indonesia were that such comm odities should have originated from an establishment 
approved by the DGLS and that also met th e healthy food requirement of Indonesia. 
412. The OIE clarified that Article 1 of the BSE ch apter contained a list of safe commodities that 
were judged to present no BSE risk no matter the BS E status of the exporting country.  This included 
de-boned skeletal muscle meat that could be impor ted from a country irrespective of its BSE status. 
413. In February 2007, Brazil reiterated its concer ns with Indonesia's lack of recognition of 
regionalization.  Indonesia had indicated that its  legislation was under revision, and was being 
harmonized with the OIE standards and SPS requireme nts, as notified in G/SPS/N/IDN/30.  However, 
Brazil's analysis of the revision concluded that Indonesia still would not recognize regionalization for 
FMD and other animal diseases.  Brazil had raised its complaint in October 2006, before the end of 
the comment period provided, but Indonesia's Enquiry Point had never provided answers to the issues raised.  Brazil urged Indonesia to ensure the full application of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement and 
the OIE standards for zoning.  The establishment of national protection levels and measures must be 
based on risk assessments, in accord ance with the SPS Agreement. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 106  
 
  414. Indonesia recalled that FMD was a very sensitive matter for Indonesia, due to its climate and 
the outbreak that had occurred five years ago.  Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement permitted Members 
to impose requirements that went beyond the inte rnational standards.  Indonesia had to apply a 
maximum standard in this case, and this would be  applied until exporting countries had been declared 
FMD-free by the OIE.  Indonesia was looking to co ntinue consultations with Brazil on this issue. 
 
Plant Health 
21. Fresh fruit and vegetables 
Raised by: Australia, United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 22) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/2 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
415. Australia and the United States sought clarificati on with regard to the scope of the Indonesian 
regulation on fresh fruit and vegetabl es.  In bilateral discussions with Australia, Indonesian authorities 
had referred to a problem arising from national pr actice, which precluded the circulation of draft 
regulations.  The United States and Australia urged Indonesia to consider legislative adjustments to 
enable WTO Members to receive information on proposed measures sufficiently in time to be 
assessed.  Australia appreciated Indonesian efforts to meet requests for additional information.  
Indonesia regretted that the draft regulation had not yet been finalized, but assured the Committee that 
a document containing detailed information about th e proposed regulations would be provided in due 
course. 
 
243. Lack of recognition of pest-free areas 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia 
Dates raised: October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, pa ras. 14-16), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, 
paras. 25-26), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/ 45, paras. 31-32), October 2007 
(G/SPS/R/46, paras. 22-23) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/24 
Solution:  
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
416. In October 2006, the United States expressed concerns regarding Indonesia's Decree 37 
implemented in March 2006, whic h established new phytosanitary requirements on fruit imports that 
failed to recognize fruit fly free areas in the United St ates.  For decades, US fruits originating from  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 107 
 
 
  pest-free areas had been shipped to Indonesia wit hout any quarantine incidence.  The new measure 
had resulted in US fresh fruit being subjected to unw arranted pest treatment before being exported to 
Indonesia.  The United States noted that the Inte rnational Standards for Phytosanitary Measures 
(ISPM) guidelines used by the United States were rec ognized by their trading partners worldwide, but 
Indonesia had failed to amend its assessment of the fru it fly status in the United States even after the 
United States had extensively communicated and provi ded Indonesia's Ministry of Agriculture with 
the information requested.  The measures imposed by Indonesia for quarantine fruit flies were overly 
restrictive and scientifically unjustified, and had impacted exports of elev en types of US fruits, 
including apples and grapes.  The United States requ ested Indonesia to allow the entry of US grapes 
accompanied by a Federal phytosanitary certificate and additional documentation attesting that the 
grapes were grown in a fruit fly-free area. 
417. Australia shared the concerns of the United St ates and indicated that it was working directly 
with Indonesia and hoped to resolve the issue in the near future. 
418. Indonesia reported that the issue had been discu ssed with the United States in a bilateral 
meeting.  Based on their discussion, Indonesia was confident that the matter would be resolved 
amicably in the near future.  Indo nesia indicated that it was to send an expert team to do an on-site 
inspection of a Mediterranean fruit fly-free area fo r grapes in the State of California.  Indonesia 
needed further information on the sites to be vi sited, including the production area of grapes in 
specific sites in California, substantial geographical information, a list of registered grape growers in 
the production area of California, information on su rface processing, packaging and storage facilities, 
and the procedure of phytosanitary certification.  Indonesia reiterated its commitment to resolving the 
matter as early as possible and in a mutually beneficial manner. 
419. In February 2007, the United States reported that the concerns regarding Indonesia's 
Decree 37 had been only partially resolved, but a co mplete resolution was within grasp.  The measure 
affected US exports of 11 horticultural products .  The United States considered that Indonesia 
imposed excessive phytosanitary requirements in relati on to pests that posed no  phytosanitary risks to 
Indonesia because they could not become established. 
420. Indonesia indicated that it would follow-up on th is matter bilaterally with the United States. 
421. In June 2007, the United States indicated that th e measure continued to affect US exports of 
apples, pears and cherries from various states.  In  May, Indonesia had hosted a meeting of technical 
experts to consider whether the pests at issue coul d in fact become established in Indonesia.  The 
United States considered that this disruption of trade should never have occurred, and looked for a 
rapid resolution of the problem. 
422. Indonesia clarified that it prohibited the im portation of fruit and vegetables only from 
countries which had fruit flies that did not exis t in Indonesia and which could cause damage if 
introduced.  The products must come from pest-f ree areas in accordance with ISPM 26, or else the 
fruits and vegetables must undergo suitable treatment .  Indonesia had transmitted to the United States 
the list of fruit flies that were present in the Un ited States but not present in Indonesia.  Indonesian 
authorities had conducted on-site inspection in the United States to verify the Mediterranean fruit fly 
free areas, and although the situation was encouraging,  Indonesia considered that grape imports posed 
too high a risk.  Furthermore, apple maggots did not exist in Indonesia, and as the United States could not meet the requirements of a pest-free area according to ISPM 26, apples had to be treated by vapour heat treatment, cold treatment or fumigati on.  Trapping had shown that apple maggots were 
still present in pest-free areas of the United States.  Contrary to US arguments, apple maggots could 
become established in Indonesia since apples were pr oduced at high altitudes with cool climates.  
Indonesia was looking forward to receiving further technical information from the United States, and 
to continuing bilateral effort s to resolve this concern. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 108  
 
  423. In October 2007, the United States reported that  while exports of apples, pears and cherries 
had resumed, Indonesia required treatment for pests that did not exist in the exporting regions, or 
which could not become established in Indonesian  territory.  The United States was still waiting for 
Indonesia to provide a written response to the inform ation that the United States had presented during 
and after a technical meeting in May 2007, and tr usted that Indonesia would continue the technical 
discussions to resolve the issue. 
424. Indonesia noted that it had provided clarifications  regarding this issue in previous Committee 
meetings.  The United States and Indonesia had held a bilateral meeting just previous to the meeting 
and had seriously discussed this issue.  Indonesia ha d agreed to follow up with further communication 
with the United States. 
 
ISRAEL 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL Animal Health 55. TSE-related import restrictions of live cattle  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Switzerland 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 35-36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ISR/2 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
425. The European Communities said that it was not entirely clear how Israel categorized 
countries' BSE status, and that the notification did not provide sufficient information.  It listed a 
number of requirements which appeared not to  be justified, and were not based on OIE 
recommendations.  The European Communities requested  an explanation of the notified legislation, 
and submitted a number of questions for written comment by Israel.  Israel requested the EC questions 
in writing.. 
 
232. Import restrictions on EC beef due to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 41-42), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 41-42), March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, paras. 44-45) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 109 
 
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
426. In October 2005, the European Communities noted that exports of EC beef into Israel were 
currently allowed only from a limited number of EC  member States and restricted to calves younger 
than 6-8 months.  No native case of BSE had been detected in some of the EC member States whose 
beef imports were prohibited.  BSE protective me asures were equally implemented through the whole 
EC territory and equally applied to beef for cons umption within the European Communities and beef 
for export.  With regard to the restriction to calves younger than 6-8 months, amendments to the 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code adopted by the OIE in May 2005 included the addition of de-boned 
skeletal muscle meat of animals less than 30 mont hs to the list of products which could be safely 
traded, under certain conditions, regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country. 
427. Israel reported that his country had alread y engaged bilaterally with the European 
Communities on this issue in order to find a mutually satisfactory solution. 
428. In March 2006, the European Communities reported that Israel continued its restrictions on 
beef from EC member States.  However, Israel's  veterinary services had indicated its willingness to 
address this issue on the basis of further OIE developments during the coming months, and the European Communities would inform the SPS Comm ittee of the final results of its bilateral 
consultations with Israel. 
429. Israel noted that in general imports of beef and bovine products we re permitted, provided 
there was no record of BSE in the exporting country  and that the import was approved by the Israeli 
veterinary service. 
 
Plant Health 
233. Phytosanitary import legislation 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 39-40), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 39-40), March 2006 (G/SPS/ R/40, paras. 36-37), June 2006 
(G/SPS/R/42, paras. 30-31), February  2007 (G/SPS/R/44, paras. 27-28) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
430. In October 2005, the European Communities reporte d that this trade concern had been raised 
bilaterally on several occasions since 1984.  Dr aft import legislation had been provided to the 
European Communities in November 2003.  Its re vision, which addressed some of the comments 
made by the European Communities in May 2004, ha d been issued in January 2005 to be presented G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 110  
 
  for revision, approval and publication by the Israe li competent authorities.  However the legislation 
was still at the draft stage, despite repeated promises by Israel that a final text would be published in 
2005.  The European Communities considered that th e lack of phytosanitary legislation contravened 
Article 7 of the SPS Agreement and created unpredic tability for EC exporters of plants and plant 
products.  Furthermore, the draft import legislation maintained the system of import licenses and 
permits currently imposed by Israel.  Israel indicat ed that these concerns would be transmitted to the 
relevant Israeli authorities and addressed as soon as possible. 
431. In March 2006, the European Communities noted that the continuing absence of 
phytosanitary import legislation in Israel led to un certainty for EC exporters and was in contradiction 
with international standards.  Although some co rrective actions had been taken by Israel, the 
legislation continued to be in a draft stage, and fi nal approval by Israel's relevant authorities was still 
pending.  The European Communities urged Israel  to adopt national legislation containing 
phytosanitary import requirements as soon as possible. 
432. Israel stressed it's full commitment to comply with the obligations of the SPS Agreement.  
Israel was aware of the importance of a coherent  and transparent legislation to allow the smooth 
development of international trade.  Israel ha d informed its trading partners that new and 
comprehensive draft legislation was under preparation.  This legislation would be submitted to Israel's 
newly elected parliament.  Israel had undertaken measures which showed its willingness to respond to 
its trading partners' concerns. 
433. In June 2006, the European Communities comp lained that Israel's phytosanitary import 
legislation was still at a draft stage, although efforts were being made to publish the final legislation.  
The European Communities invited Israel to finally adopt this legislation. 
434. Israel explained that the plant protection and inspection services of Israel were revising and 
modifying Israel's import regulations for plants and plant products.  The regulations had existed since 
1971, and had been revised and modified since then  to comply with the SPS Agreement.  Various 
products and commodities were allowed according to th eir phytosanitary risk and imports permits for 
new products were granted after a pest risk analysis .  The revision process, which required attention to 
hundreds of products, was taking longer than expect ed.  The import requirements for most products 
were already specified in the import permits and co uld be found on the website of the Ministry of 
Agriculture, but the interagency legislative process had not yet been completed.  The Ministry of 
Agriculture was expected to send its final draft ph ytosanitary import legislation to the Ministry of 
Justice within weeks, then the draft would be sent to  the Israeli Parliament.  Israel's plant protection 
and inspection services were doing their utmost to facilitate trade with the European Communities and 
with other trading partners. 
435. In February 2007, the European Communities not ed that Israel's l ack of phytosanitary 
legislation lead to uncertainty and unpredictability  regarding the steps to be followed when exported 
products reached the market.  Israel had taken some  actions to increase transparency by publishing 
some import requirements on the internet.  However, it appeared that the legislation was still at a draft 
stage, and the European Communities requested Israel to finalize its le gislation in accordance with the 
IPPC standards. 
436. Israel expressed regret that this issue had been  raised again despite bilateral discussions with 
the European Communities.  The title of this agenda  item was not appropriate as Israel had legislation 
on SPS requirements for imports.  The European Communities concern related to the level of 
specificity of that legislation.  Israel underst ood the need for predictability and was making great 
efforts in this regard.  The Ministries of Agricultu re, Finance and Justice were involved in the work.  
The Ministry of Justice had completed work on a draft, which had been sent to the Ministry of 
Agriculture for final comments.  The final draf t would be sent to the Economic and Finance  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 111 
 
 
  committees before its final approval.  There was no timeframe established for the adoption of the 
legislation, however Israel insisted that this did not create a hindrance to th e trade of the European 
Communities or any other trading partners as trade continued to take place normally. 
 
JAPAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN 
Food safety 147. Regulation on food additives 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 35-37) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
437. The European Communities indicated that a lis t of substances, including food additives, 
aromas, food ingredients and extract solvents, were not formally authorized by Japanese law, which 
could constitute barriers to food product exports to Japan.  Some of the additives had already been authorized by Japan for other purposes.  The Eur opean Communities requested Japan to approve those 
substances that had been evaluated by the Eu ropean Communities on scientific grounds, and noted 
that all of the substances had been evaluated at th e international level by the scientific committee of 
the Codex Alimentarius Commission.  The European  Communities reported that a number of bilateral 
meetings had already taken place.  The United Stat es shared the concerns expressed by the European 
Communities and urged Japan to c onsider expedited approval for these food additives that were 
commonly used and considered safe. 
438. Japan stated that it had recently enacted a new policy for evaluating the safety and the 
necessity of the use of food additives and for author izing their use.  Japanese authorities were putting 
together a list of food additives that were consider ed safe and necessary to use for certain foods.  The 
use of food additives varied from country to co untry depending upon cust oms and habits, and a 
number of food additives authorized by the Europ ean Communities were not authorized in Japan and 
vice versa.  Japan suggested further b ilateral consultations on this issue. 
439. In January 2005, Japan reported that food a dditives, including flavouring agents were 
permitted to be used only when designated by the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare under the 
Food Sanitation Law as substances that were unlikely to cause a health hazard.  With regards to the 
use of unauthorized food additives, an application must be filed with the Minister. 
440. Furthermore, since 2002, Japan had given priority  to certain food additives for authorization, 
including those proposed by the European Communities and that we re also proven safe by the 
FAO/WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additiv es.  The Minister had taken the necessary 
procedures to hear the opinions of the Food Safety Commission (FSC) on 29 additives, including 9 flavouring agents, for which full doc umentation had been prepared.  Of the 29 substances, 4 additives G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 112  
 
  (including 3 flavouring agents) were designated as au thorized food additives in December 2004.  This 
information was provided to the European Co mmunities at the Japan-EU Regulatory Reform 
Dialogue and at other opportunities.  In order to expedite and facilitate Japanese evaluations of the 
substances, the European Communities were request ed to provide the documentation and literature 
supporting EC scientific evaluation of the substances. 
 
148. Amendment of the food sanitation law 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: Republic of Korea 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 40-42) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/84, G/SPS/N/JPN/86 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
441. China raised concerns over Japan's amendment of the food sanitation law and the procedures 
followed.  Japan's emergency notification (G/SPS/N/ JPN/84), issued on 18 July 2002, indicated that 
the amendment prohibiting the sale, manufacturing and import of specific food, food additives, apparatus and container/packages when considerab le amounts of foods were assumed not to be in 
conformity with the provisions of the Food  Sanitation Law would enter into force on 
7 September 2002.  A related emergency notifi cation had been made on 7 September 2002 
(G/SPS/N/JPN/86).  China questioned the appropriate ness of the use of emergency notifications, as 
Members could not comment before the measure ha d been enforced.  Chin a requested Japan to 
provide the scientific evidence, including a risk anal ysis, that supported the measures taken.  Korea 
indicated that it had requested information on Japan's amendment on 3 September 2002, and were awaiting a response. 
442. Japan indicated that they had already recei ved comprehensive comments from China on the 
amendment of the food sanitation law within the fr amework of the Trade Policy Review of Japan.  
The use of the emergency notifications were in  accordance with the recommended procedures for 
transparency, however, Japan was prepared to consider the matter further on a bilateral basis. 
443. In February 2005, Japan reported that it had r esponded to China's comments on notification 
G/SPS/N/JPN/86 in November 2002 and had not since received any objections from China. 
 178. Revision of standards and specifications for food and additives 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 45-46) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/104  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 113 
 
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
444. China expressed concerns over Japan's maximum residue levels (MRLs) for several pesticide 
residues, in particular MRLs for chlorpyrifos.  The limits for chlorpyrifos in spinach and other 
products were not science-based. 
445. Japan noted that answers to questions rai sed by China had been provided through the 
Japanese Embassy in China.  With regards to the MRL for spinach, this product was not included in 
the notification.  The MRL for the 15 pesticid es were based on toxicological risk assessments 
including residue data and were no mo re stringent than Codex standards. 
446. In February 2005, Japan reported that it had not received any objections from China since 
providing responses to China's concerns in Oct ober 2003 and participating in the Japan-China 
bilateral consultations in December 2004. 
 201. Standards and specifications for food additives (boscalid) 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/121 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
447. China raised concerns over Japan's notifica tion G/SPS/N/JPN/121 on proposed MRLs for the 
fungicide boscalid.  The products affected by the pr oposed MRL included produc ts of animal origin 
although the use of boscalid was applicable to onl y a few products such as soybean and fruits.  
Furthermore, MRLs for boscalid varied for differe nt products, e.g., the MRL for strawberries was 
15 ppm while the MRL for other products was 3.5 ppm.  Japan was requested to explain these 
differences in MRLs and to provide scientific ev idence to justify the establishment of MRLs for 
boscalid. 
448. Japan stated that its measur es were based, in part, on the standards adopted by the US 
Environment Protection Agency (EPA) for boscalid, incl uding the products that were affected by the 
MRL.  As boscalid was a newly registered agricu ltural chemical in Japan, MRLs needed to be 
established to ensure food safety.  Domestic data was also taken into account in establishing the MRL 
and this explained why there were some differe nces in the MRLs between Japan and the United 
States. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 114  
 
  212. Positive list system for pesticides, ve terinary drugs and feed additives MRLs 
Raised by: China, United States 
Supported by: Australia, Philippines 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1,  paras. 19-21), October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 49-51 and 61-63), February 20 06 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 49-51 and 61-
63), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras. 22-24) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
449. In March 2005, China noted that the proposed adoption of a single standard limit of 0.1 ppm 
for 700 types of pesticides, veterinary drugs and f eed additives for which no specific residue limit had 
been established would jeopardize Chinese exports of vegetables to Japan.  China requested that Japan 
assess the possible impact of such an amendment on exports to Japan , provide opportunities to discuss 
the results of this assessment and consider soluti ons to minimize its impact.  Japan should also 
provide the science-based risk assessment that had led to the amendment of the MRLs.  Should there 
be any notification in the future on this issue, Japan should provide a comment period of at least 60 
days as of the date of distribution and extend th is upon request, and allow an adequate adaptation 
period in accordance with the Doha decision.  Chin a also sought clarifications on Japan's detection 
methods for residues.  The Philippines supported China's concerns on this issue and requested 
relevant information from Japan in order to assess the possible implications of this proposed 
amendment on the Philippines' exports. 
450. Japan clarified that the its new positive list sy stem, based on the revised Food Sanitation Law, 
was aimed at regulating the distribution of foods th at contained agricultural chemicals, veterinary 
drugs and feed additives for which no MRLs had yet been established.  Before the positive list system 
entered into force, the Ministry of Health, Labo ur and Welfare would compare its provisional MRLs 
with the Codex standards. 
451. In February 2006, the United States reported th at in June 2005, Japan had notified its final 
draft of thousands of new provisional maximum r esidue limits (MRLs) for over 700 pesticides, 
veterinary drugs and feed additives covering all basic commodity groups.  In November 2005, the 
provision of a six-month transition period before official enforcement of the provisional MRLs had 
been notified.  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fo restry and Fisheries of Japan (MAFF) had announced 
in December 2005 the implementation and enforcem ent of the provisional MRLs on rice, wheat, 
barley and possibly other commodities.  The United States was concerned about the effect of these 
new MRLs on agricultural exports to Japan and re quested Japan to clarify its plans regarding the 
enforcement of these MRLs. 
452. China requested Japan to grant at least an additional 18 months for developing country 
Members to adjust the application of agriculture chemicals, conduct training and education activities, 
provide guidance to farmers and make laboratory preparations.  Although Japan argued that it had 
taken three years to prepare the draft of its positi ve list system and had already notified this three 
times, each time the number of MRLs and produc t coverage varied.  A two-year adaptation period 
was appropriate to allow the decline of pesticide residues in soil and air after their use had ceased.  
Moreover, considering the number of MRLs iden tified, a phased introduction of the new MRL 
requirements was necessary.  Furt hermore, Japan had published only some of the testing methods 
used to develop the MRLs, and many of these testi ng methods were only illustrated by flow charts.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 115 
 
 
  China requested that Japan notify in advance all available and newly developed testing technology 
and methods for all provisional MRLs listed in the positive list system, and provide a 60-day 
comment period and a 6-month adaptation period. 
453. Australia expressed appreciation for Japan's collaborative attitude when developing this 
comprehensive new positive list and encouraged Japan  to provide some clarification regarding the 
nature of testing requirements. 
454. Japan clarified that, in accordance with th e amendment of the Food Sanitation Law of 
May 2003, the positive list system fo r pesticides, veterinary drugs a nd feed additives in food would be 
implemented as of May 2006 as had been officially  announced in December 2005.  From August to 
October 2005, Japan had explained to governmental  organizations of countries exporting rice, wheat 
and barley to Japan that the new inspection system  was to be implemented in December 2005.  Japan 
could not extend the adaptation period as the framewo rk of the system had been published three times 
since 2003.  The final draft had been released in  November 2005, and Japan considered that a six-
month implementation period was sufficient.  Japan  had developed and published analytical methods 
for more than 500 substances when developing the positive list system a nd would continue to 
establish and publish analytical methods for additiona l substances.  Japan would provide China with 
technical advice about analytical methods if requested. 
455. In June 2006, China noted that Japan's positive list system for agricultural chemical residues 
in food had entered into force on 29 May 2006.  Whil e recognizing Japan's right to revise its residue 
standards to safeguard the health of its citizens,  China was concerned since Japan was the largest 
importer of food from China.  Japan had only published testing methods for 553 agricultural 
chemicals;  testing methods for another 200 chemical s were still lacking, which could seriously affect 
efforts of developing country Members to study th ese methods.  In addition, Japan was not following 
the Codex guidelines for judging test results.  Ch ina requested Japan to publish all testing methods, 
notify them, offer a 60-day comment period, provide a six-month transitional period before they entered into force and offer technical training and education to China. 
456. China further asked Japan to explain why it ha d started implementing the positive list system 
in December 2005 by requiring that rice be test ed according to the new MRLs, well ahead of the 
May 2006 implementation date.  This had raised cost s for Chinese rice exports and interrupted trade, 
since farmers had no time to adjust their chemical  use.  From January to June 2006, on three 
occasions, China had been given only two weeks to co mment on certain MRLs, which was too short.  
China requested an explanation of the relationshi p between these MRLs and the positive list system.  
In China's view, these changes should be notified to the WTO.  Finally, China noted that both the 
Japanese and English versions of the positive list sy stem contained many editing errors and that 
therefore there were constant changes and asked Jap an to provide a clear and comprehensive list of 
MRLs for agricultural chemicals at an early date.  Previous efforts to resolve the problems had not 
succeeded, and China urged Japan to address China's concerns in a scientific way. 
457. Japan confirmed that its positive list system fo r agricultural chemicals including pesticides, 
veterinary drugs and feed additives had taken e ffect on 29 May 2006.  For the establishment of 
provisional MRLs, Japan had taken into account C odex standards;  existing residue levels for 
pesticides set under the Agricultural Chemicals Re gulation Law or limits of determination for 
veterinary drugs set under the Pharmaceutical Affa irs Law;  and MRLs set by other countries where 
residue standards were based upon the toxicological  data required by the Joint WHO/FAO Expert 
Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Joint WHO/FAO Meeting on Pesticide Residues 
(JMPR).  Since these MRLs had been establis hed through a globally accepted approach, Japan 
believed them to be consistent with WTO princi ples.  Japan used a toxicological threshold of 
1.5 μg/day to determine the uniform limit, based on JECFA, US F DA and JMPR evaluations.  The 
uniform limit had been set at 0.01 ppm, based on the food consumption patterns of the Japanese G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 116  
 
  population.  Japan had published analytical methods for 623 substances and woul d continue to finalize 
and publish the remaining analytical methods for ot her substances.  When Japan newly established or 
amended standards, including MRLs, under the Food Sanitation Law, these were explained to foreign 
embassies in advance of WTO notification.  After this meeting, comments were requested within two 
weeks, after which the notification was sent to WTO, with a 60-day comment period. 
 
Animal Health 
34. Measures regarding FMD 
Raised by: Argentina, European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Re v.1, para. 46), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 15-17) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/Notif.97.357 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
458. Argentina raised questions on the notified TBT measure, which authorized imports of FMD 
inactivated vaccine (but only the O type of FM D inactivated virus), and exempted traders from 
undergoing the usual approval procedures.  Three c ountries were designated as suppliers:  Germany, 
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.  Argentin a sought clarification regarding (a) the current 
FMD-status of Japan since the decision to import FM D vaccines took effect;  (b) the criteria used to 
designate only three sources of supply;  (c) whether Japan considered itself a "zero-risk" country and 
whether a risk assessment had been carried out in s upport of this "zero-risk" status;  and (d) since 
Argentina was declared free of FMD with vaccina tion by the OIE, how Japan viewed its current 
policy not to import Argentine meat.  Japan explaine d that the notified measure was an amendment to 
the approval procedures regarding the import of vacc ines for emergencies.  It was a precautionary 
measure following the outbreak of FMD in Chinese  Taipei in March 1997.  Argentina indicated it 
would provide its questions in writing to Japan. 
459. In March 2002, the European Communities stated  that slow administrative procedures had 
caused unjustified disruptions in the trade of several  EC member States with Japan.  In spite of the 
formal recognition by the OIE of EC member States as FMD-free, Japanese procedures for recognizing the FMD-free status of these countri es dragged on.  The European Communities noted 
that they had done everything possible to meet the Japanese requirements and expressed 
disappointment that Japan would not begin the re -opening process until after the official FMD-free 
declaration by the OIE on 19 September 2001.  The EC noted that the re-opening process itself was extremely cumbersome and combined with delays in organizing a Japanese inspection mission, the 
effect was unnecessary delay in reopening of the ma rket.  Furthermore, the European Communities 
felt that the use of questionnaires was only justified at the time of the outbreak, and that import 
requirements should be made clear from the outset.  The representative of the European Communities 
requested an indication of when Japan would rec ognize the EC FMD disease-free status.  Japan noted 
that the risk assessment for FMD had been delayed due to late responses from France, Ireland and the 
Netherlands. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 117 
 
 
  99. Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top from Indonesia 
Raised by: Indonesia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 32-35), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
paras. 24-25), November 2002 (G/SPS/R /28, paras. 185-186), June 2003 
(G/SPS/R/30, paras. 57-58) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/266, Annex 1, G/SPS/GEN/240 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
460. In July 2001, Indonesia raised concerns regard ing Japan's restrictions on the importation of 
sugar cane top for fear of contamination with FMD, although Indonesia was recognized as free from FMD.  Indonesia had cooperated with Japan's assessme nt of the FMD situation in Indonesia, but was 
concerned about delays and inform ation requirements.  Indonesia inte nded to provide the information, 
but requested a clear schedule to ensure a speedy solution.  Indonesia and Argentina requested the 
OIE to explain whether these restrictions could be ju stified.  Japan replied that it had notified the 
animal health authorities in Indonesia of the additi onal information needed for the analysis and was 
waiting for Indonesia's response.  The OIE confirmed that Indonesia had been recognized as free from 
FMD without vaccination (G/SPS/GEN/266, Annex 1).  The International Animal Health Code contained a list of products which could transm it FMD, and the list did not include sugar cane 
(G/SPS/GEN/240).  The Code considered that othe r products, such as cerea ls, fruits, vegetables and 
roots did not present a risk. 
461. In October 2001, Indonesia reported that in a ddition to informal bilateral consultations, 
Indonesia had also provided detailed information re quested in a questionnaire from Japan.  Indonesia 
was willing to furnish all necessary documentation, as any protraction of this problem would have 
detrimental effects on the Indonesian economy.  Japan  stated that at a bilateral meeting certain 
misunderstandings had been cleared up.  Japan l ooked forward to receiving such information as was 
necessary to resolve this problem. 
462. In November 2002, Indonesia noted that th e Japanese animal health inspection team had 
carried out an FMD risk assessment in Indonesia in  June 2002.  Indonesia recalled that the OIE had 
recognized the country as FMD-free without vaccina tion and requested Japan to take this into 
consideration.  Japan stated th at the issue could not be resolv ed until the risk assessment was 
completed.  Further data had been sought from Indonesia in order to finalize the risk assessment. 
463. In June 2003, Indonesia raised concerns that Japan continued to ban imports of sugar cane top 
from Indonesia and as a result the Indonesian indus try had collapsed.  Japan had not acknowledged 
that Indonesia was free from FMD despite the fact the Indonesia's FMD-free status had been regularly 
confirmed by the OIE.  Indonesia welcomed furt her Japanese missions to Indonesia but requested 
Japan to specify more clearly the issues of their c oncern.  Japan responded that  technical consultations 
had been held and more experts had been dispatch ed in June 2002 in order to provide Japan with 
additional scientific information.  Further scientific assessments would now be carried out and Japan 
looked forward to continued consultations. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 118  
 
  213. Restrictions on beef  imports  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 30-31), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 53-55), Oc tober 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 43-
45), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras.  43-45 ), March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, 
paras. 46-47) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 10-14 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
464. In March 2005, the United States emphasized its concerns regarding Japan's continuing 
restrictions on US beef based on the detection, in  December 2003, of a single case of BSE in an 
imported cow.  It recalled its ongoing cooperation w ith Japan, over the past 14 months, to resolve all 
scientific and health concerns about the safety of  US beef.  The October 2004 bilateral agreement 
required the United States to provide all the scientif ic information requested by Japan and to allow 
access for Japanese technical officials to US facilities.  Effective firewalls had been in place for many 
years to prevent the establishment and spread of BSE within the United States.  In response to the 
single case of BSE, the United States had implemented several additional regulatory measures to further strengthen existing safeguards, had comple ted a comprehensive epidemiological investigation 
and taken many other actions described in the report of the March meeting.  Given that there had been 
no indigenous cases of BSE reported, there was suffici ent scientific evidence fo r Japan to immediately 
remove restrictions on US beef and beef products. 
465. Japan indicated that the US beef  issue was one of the most important policy agenda items for 
the Japanese government.  Japan recalled that the October 2004 bilateral framework agreement to 
resume the two-way trade in beef was subject to the respective domestic approval processes including 
deliberation by each Member's food safety comm issions.  The Japanese Food Safety Commission 
would undertake a risk assessment for imports of  US beef as soon as it had completed its risk 
assessment of domestic BSE measures. 
466. In June 2005, the United States emphasized ove r the past 17 months, the United States had 
provided Japan with extensive technical informa tion on all aspects of its BSE-related protection 
measures, internationally recognized as effectiv e and appropriate, for both food safety and animal 
health.  The United States stressed that, according to the revised OIE standards, the recent detection of 
one BSE-infected animal blocked from the food and feed chain could not be used as an excuse to 
restrict imports of US beef products.  The Eur opean Communities invited Japan to replace its import 
ban with specific requirements in accordance with OIE standards.  Jap an reported that the Food Safety 
Commission had completed the risk assessment  on domestic beef on 6 May 2005 and was now 
carrying out the risk assessment on US beef. 
467. In February 2006, the European Communities re ported that Japan had recently reopened its 
market for beef exports from some EC member Stat es, but in accordance with Articles 2.3 and 3.3 of 
the SPS Agreement, Japan should reopen its market to bovine products from al l EC member States.  
The protective BSE measures, including the implemen tation and enforcement of the feed ban, the 
removal of specified risk materials and the elaboration of an identification, registration and 
traceability system for bovines and their products able to warrantee the age of each bovine, could fully 
satisfy the safety of consumers anywhere in the wo rld.  The United States noted that Japan had re- G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 119 
 
 
  opened its market for some US beef products but ma intained scientifically unjustified restrictions on 
other products, inconsistent w ith international standards. 
468. Japan observed that numerous countries still suspended beef imports from BSE-infected 
countries and that international standards on BSE ch anged every year.  On the basis of its risk 
analysis, Japan had decided to reduce its beef  imports from a few BSE-affected countries. 
469. In March 2006, the European Communities indicated  that despite bilateral efforts following 
the consideration of this issue at the last SPS Co mmittee meeting, progress on this issue had not been 
satisfactory.  In the light of favourable devel opments of the disease situation in the European 
Communities and due to recent changes in the OIE Te rrestrial Animal Health Code chapter on BSE, it 
was time for Members to implement internationa l standards for BSE.  The European Communities 
could satisfy Japan's requirements related to the feed  ban and its enforcement;  the removal of specific 
risk materials;  and an effective system of id entification and registration and traceability for bovines 
and their products.  Japan had denied the EC reque st to perform BSE risk assessments for interested 
EC member States, in contravention of Articles 2.3 and 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.  The European 
Communities invited Japan to review its ban on impo rts of EC beef on the basis of a risk assessment 
and noted that useful discussions had been held just prior to the meeting. 
470. Japan indicated that Japan had decided in January 2006 to hold technical consultations 
between experts from Japan and from those EC member  States interested in exporting beef to Japan. 
 
221. Safety insurance and quality improvemen t standards for feed and feed additives 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 78-79) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
471. In March 2005, China raised concerns that Japan's revision of standards for Astaxanthin 
lacked scientific justification.  China was not awar e of any evidence of harmful effects and asked if 
Japan had found Astaxanthin harmful to fish at certain levels. 
472. Japan stated that scientific data was insufficien t and that no international standards had been 
established so far.  Some Members had regulations to  restrict the maximum dose of Astaxanthin to be 
administered to finfish.  Therefore, as a provisional measure, Japan had set an upper limit for 
Astaxanthin, which was added to feeds, based on SPS  measures applied by other Members.  Japan had 
taken into account technical and economic feasibility  when deciding the upper limit.  Japan was 
willing to reconsider its regulation when new inte rnational standards or scientific evidence on this 
issue were presented. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 120  
 
  Plant Health 
23. Plant quarantine regulations 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 26), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/19, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
473. In March 1997, the United States informed the Committee of bilateral discussion with Japan 
regarding its plant quarantine regulations.  Both Members agreed that the communication process had 
flowed smoothly, and that this was a good example of how the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement could enhance the understanding betw een Members on points of concern.  Japan 
maintained that its proposed regulation was based on the pest-risk analysis guidelines of the IPPC. 
474. In July 2001, the United States reported that it had continued to hold bilateral consultations 
with Japan on aspects of its quarantine regulatio ns, including measures rela ted to apple imports 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States considers this trade concern unresolved. 
 
56. Notification on amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, Philippines, Uruguay, European 
Communities 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 31-34), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, 
para. 82), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/100, G/SPS/N/JPN/37, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
475. In November 1998, the United States noted that the draft regulation proposed the addition of 
27 pests to the list of non-quarantine pests in Ja pan's Plant Protection La w.  The United States, 
although encouraged by certain aspects of Japan's pr oposal, continued to have concerns regarding the 
basis and application of Japan's phytosanitary legisla tion.  The legislative amendments did not appear 
to alter the current practice of requiring fumigation and other costly treatment for most non-quarantine 
pests, including those pests which we re widespread in Japan and not subject to internal regulatory or 
quarantine controls.  The United States urged Japan to  take into consideration the IPPC definition of a 
quarantine pest.  The European Co mmunities asked Japan to explain the scientific rationale behind its 
measure, and the risk assessment it was based on.  Japan replied that its defi nition of quarantine pests 
complied with the IPPC definition.  The list of non- quarantine pests would be reviewed in the future 
with a view to expansion.  Japan welcomed c ontinued bilateral consultations on the matter.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 121 
 
 
  476. In November 1999, the European Communities reca lled its request for an explanation of the 
Japanese measure, to which it had not received a re ply.  Japan announced that the matter would be 
pursued bilaterally. 
477. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with 
Japan. 
 
133. Official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables 
Raised by: New Zealand, United States 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras. 27-30), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 59-62), April 2003 (G/SPS/ R/29, paras. 55-57), June 2003 
(G/SPS/R/30, paras. 61-63), Octobe r 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras.19-20), 
March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 59-62), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 18-21), October 2004 (G/SPS/ R/35, paras. 42-44), March 2005 
(G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 61-64) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/357, G/SPS/N/JPN/132 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
478. In June 2002, the United States indicated th at Japan continued to impose costly and 
unjustified quarantine actions when pests were det ected on imported US fruits and vegetables, even 
though the same species were commonly found in Japan.  In many instances these actions included 
treatment that damaged and destroyed the commodity in question.  These practices lacked a scientific 
basis and were inconsistent with IPPC standards on official control and risk assessment for quarantine 
pests.  The result was an arbitrary and unpredictabl e system facing US horticultural exports to Japan.  
The United States supported Japan's efforts to bri ng its plant laws into line with international 
standards and hoped that bilateral technical discussion s would result in the termination of unjustified 
requirements.  The European Communities supported th e US statement.  New Zealand noted concerns 
with Japan's continuing practice of fumigating consi gnments of fresh products due to the interception 
of pests that did not meet the definition of quarantine pests under the IPPC. 
479. Japan recalled that during bilateral consultati ons with the United States in November 2001, 
the United States had requested Japan to abolish fu migation upon detection of California red scale and 
Fuller rose weevil in US produce, on the grounds that these were non-quarantine pests endemic in 
Japan.  However, California red scale was under dom estic control in Japan as a target pest of 
forecasting programmes and was therefore subject to fumigation if detected at import inspection.  Fuller rose weevil had limited detection with only three points within Japan and was under 
government-oriented control aimed at eradication.   It was not possible under these conditions to 
exclude those species from quarantine pests.  Jap an noted that they remained open to further 
consultations. 
480. In November 2002, New Zealand expressed concern with Japan's official control restrictions, 
detailed in G/SPS/GEN/357.  New Zealand requested Japan to confirm that it would not take any 
action, such as fumigation, on any pest found on imported produce if that pest was already present in Japan but not under official control as defined by the IPPC  The United States recalled its concerns G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 122  
 
  over the basis and application of Japan's phytosanitary  legislation, in particular with respect to 
horticultural products that continued to face unjustified quarantine actions at Japan's ports of entry.  
Even when Japan required no domestic quarantine tr eatment for the same species of pests, the 
treatment imposed on imported produce include d fumigation which in many cases ruined the 
products.  The United States considered Japan's actions to be highly disruptive of trade.  Australia and 
the European Communities expressed their concern regarding Japan's official control restrictions and 
supported the statements made by Ne w Zealand and the United States. 
481. Japan recognized that the IPPC standards shoul d be one of the basis in a possible future 
quarantine system for Japan.  Japan was examining whether its appropriate le vel of protection could 
be maintained by applying plant quarantine measures in line with the new IPPC definition, taking into 
account Japan's climate and the large volume of impor ts into Japan.  A number of pests were presently 
under study and although a final c onclusion had not yet been reached, discussions were underway to 
identify practical measures to reduce the effects of Japan's official control measures on international 
trade. 
482. In April 2003, New Zealand stressed that Japan's  policy was not consistent with the relevant 
international definition in ISPM-5 of the IPPC and Supplement No.1.  Bilateral discussions between 
New Zealand and Japan continued and New Zeala nd requested a policy statement  from Japan by 
1 January 2003.  To date, no such statement had been forthcoming.  Japan had still not brought its 
phytosanitary measures in line with IPPC definitions and guidelines.  The United States stated that it 
shared the concerns and frustrations of New Zeal and and continued to experience trade disruptions 
due to Japan's phytosanitary legislation and unju stified quarantine actions.  The United States had 
requested information on which pests were considered  quarantine risks but did not receive a reply.  
Australia and the European Commun ities shared the concerns of New Zealand and the United States. 
483. Japan stated that it was under no obligation to make a policy statement regarding non-
quarantine pests, however, in the interest of tran sparency, Japan would provide a statement.  Japan 
respected international rules, including IPPC guidelines, and took appropriate measures where 
necessary on the basis of its national plant protection laws.  Further examination was necessary to see 
if Japan's current measures were consistent w ith international standards and representatives from 
outside government would be inv ited to review the situation. 
484. In June 2003, New Zealand indicated that it was pleased to learn that Japan was reviewing its 
system in order to change it.  The United States stated it was disappointed with the discriminatory 
nature of Japan's measures, its failure to notif y internal regulations and the general lack of 
transparency within its system.  Australia express ed support for statements made by New Zealand and 
the United States.  Japan reported that bilatera l consultations had been  conducted and further 
examination would be necessary befo re conclusions could be drawn. 
485. In October 2003, New Zealand reported that there had not been any response from Japan 
since bilateral contacts in April and June 2003.  Japan responded that it was seeking to resolve the 
issue through technical discussions between relevant national experts.  A bilateral meeting was to be 
held in November to discuss orchard controls a nd pre-clearance inspection systems.  Japan reported 
that in June it had established a consultative group consisting of different st akeholders to examine 
whether its measures were consistent with internatio nal standards.  This group had already met three 
times. 
486. In March 2004, New Zealand noted that in November 2003, it presented a submission on its 
concerns as part of Japan's review of its plan t quarantine processes and looked forward to having 
these concerns addressed in an early and trade fac ilitating manner.  The United States reported that on 
8 October 2003, the United States had presented its concerns on the classification of eleven specific species as quarantine pests to the Japanese plant protection division.  In contrast to internationally  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 123 
 
 
  accepted definitions of quarantine pests, Japan's le gal definition of pests included pests that were 
already present in Japan and not subject to official  control.  As a result, imported products faced 
discriminatory treatment compared to domestic produc ts since they were subjected to fumigation for 
pests that already existed in Japan .  Japan was requested to provide clarification and information on 
actions taken to eradicate and contain the eleven specific pests and their di stribution in Japan, and on 
its efforts to align its plant health laws with in ternational standards.  The European Communities 
supported the concerns of New Zealand and the United States. 
487. Japan recalled that at the last Committee mee ting, Japan and New Zealand had agreed to 
resolve the issue from a technical perspective and on a case-by-case basis.  As a result of bilateral 
discussions, new quarantine measures were to be intr oduced in May 2004, based on trials of orchard 
control for Fuller Rose Weevil on kiwifruit.  Furthe rmore, quarantine trials for reducing fumigation 
on lettuce from the United States were conducted from July 2003 to March 2004 and the results were 
under evaluation.  Japan had received requests for 39 species of pests from New Zealand and 11 species from the United States to be designated as non-quarantine pests.  Members' concerns on 
the inconsistency of Japan's plant health laws w ith international standard s were under review.  The 
consultative group on plant quarantine established by Japan's plant quarantine authorities had held 
four meetings but experienced a delay in comp iling its recommendations.  The consultative group 
meetings would be reactivated to work on reco mmendations which would be considered by plant 
quarantine authorities for further action. 
488. In June 2004, New Zealand welcomed the conclusi on of Japan's review of its plant quarantine 
regime and urged that the recommendations of  Japan's Plant Quaran tine Review Committee, 
particularly the recommendation that Japan move towa rds international practice, be adopted promptly.  
This issue had first been raised in the SPS Comm ittee in March 2002, but  bilateral exchanges had 
been occurring since 1986 between New Zealand and Jap an on this issue.  With the conclusion of the 
plant quarantine review, New Zealand expected that  Japan would expand its non-quarantine pest list 
to reflect those pests already in Japan and not unde r official control.  Although the Plant Quarantine 
Review Committee's report had not yet been consid ered domestically and implementation timelines 
had not been published, New Zealand hoped that a mutually acceptable solution could be reached 
soon. 
489. The United States recalled that it had provided an update at the last Committee meeting on 
Japan's policy for requiring fumigation for non-qu arantine pests, even when these pests were 
commonly found in Japan.  Japan's written response to  the US request on the eleven pests recognized 
the necessity of taking into account the relevant standards of the IPPC when conducting pest risk 
assessments (PRAs), was welcomed.  ISPM 2, "Guide lines for Pest Risk Assessment", indicated that 
the PRA process should end when, in the course of th e analysis, a potential quarantine pest had been 
identified as present and not subject to official controls.  The European Communities shared the 
concerns of New Zealand and the United States. 
490. Japan indicated that its authorities were iden tifying measures which would maintain Japan's 
appropriate level of protection a nd be consistent with  relevant international standards.  The 
Consultative Group on Plant Quarantine Systems published its report on 21 May 2004, including input from national stakeholders and foreign gove rnments.  The Consultative Group recommended 
that plant quarantine measures should be based on scientific risk assessments, following IPPC 
guidelines.  In the review of existing PRAs, th e plant quarantine authorities had focused on high 
priority pests designated by other Members.  As a first step, Japan planned to notify these measures by 
December 2004. 
491. In October 2004, New Zealand asked Japan whet her it had adopted the necessary procedures 
to expand its non-quarantine pest list to include th ose pests already present in Japan that were not 
under official control as defined by the IPPC.  The United States commented that they looked forward G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 124  
 
  to reviewing the report on Japan's plant quarantine regime at the end of the year.  The European 
Communities expressed support for the statements made by New Zealand and the United States and urged Japan to align its phytosanitary measures with  IPPC definitions and guidelines.  Japan replied 
that Members would be notified of the changes in its legislation in December 2004 and amendments 
would be made no later than March 2005. 
492. In March 2005, New Zealand reiterated its con cerns and welcomed Japan's announcement of 
expansion of its non quarantine pest list through th e addition of 46 pests, especially as this list 
included a number of pests of specific concern to New Zealand.  New Zealand encouraged Japan to 
implement these proposed changes as soon as its dom estic regulatory procedures allowed, and in a 
manner that significantly addressed its concerns.  Ne w Zealand also requested information on Japan's 
proposed timetable for carrying out risk assessments on other pests of concern to New Zealand with a 
view to their inclusion on Japan's non-quarantine pest list as soon as practicable.  The United States 
and the European Communities shared  the concern that Japan's system s and procedures needed to be 
further modified to conform to international norms and practices while welcoming Japan's efforts to 
revise its plant quarantine process. 
493. Japan noted that it had notified the draft amendment of the ordinance modifying non-
quarantine pest lists in December 2004 (G/SPS/ N/JPN/132).  Comments from Members had been 
accepted for 60 days between 4 January and 4 March 2005.  Domestic comments had been collected 
between 27 December 2004 and 25 February 2005.  These comments were presently under 
examination by the plant quarantine authorities of Japan and it would take approximately one month 
to amend the relevant re gulations, if approved. 
 
162. Fumigation standards 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
494. The United States reported that a newly adopted measure by Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, 
Fisheries and Food prohibited the re-fumigation of  fruit or rice which had previously undergone 
fumigation in the United States.  Japan had not no tified this measure and the United States requested 
clarification from Japan on the objective of the measure, its scope, implementation, enforcement and 
projected trade effects, as well as a delay in its implementation. 
495. Japan stated that it would transmit the United St ates' concern to its authorities and respond in 
due course. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 125 
 
 
  223. Import requirements for Indian mangoes 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 37-38) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
496. In June 2005, India stated that although it had many years ago provided the pest and 
surveillance data and the information on treatment standards requested by Japanese authorities, the 
pest risk analysis had not yet been completed.   The extremely slow progress made so far was 
impinging heavily on India's market access for mangoes to Japan.  Another round of bilateral 
technical consultations would be held in mid-July 2005. 
497. Japan explained that it was taking the necessar y measures to prevent a possible invasion of 
the melon fly and two other pests recorded in India but not present in Japan.  Japan had to verify the 
disease status of Indian mangoes or the application of an effective disinfestation treatment in 
accordance with relevant international standards.  Technical discussions were currently ongoing in 
order to develop the disinfestation technique, but th e technical data provided were not sufficient to 
allow certification of the effectiveness of the technique. 
 
Other concerns 
13. Translation of regulations 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Thailand 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, para. 26) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/1, G/SPS/N/KOR/29, G/SPS/N/KOR/20, G/SPS/N/KOR/31 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
498. Argentina regretted that the regulations notified by Japan and Korea were not available in one 
of the three WTO working languag es.  The Chairman recalled that Annex B, paragraph 8 of the SPS 
Agreement requires developed country Members to "p rovide copies of the documents or, in case of 
voluminous documents, summaries of the documents covered by a specific notification in English, 
French or Spanish", if there is a specific requ est from another Member.  Japan observed that it 
normally provided summaries of the documents in E nglish.  Thailand suggested that countries give 
sufficient detail in the description of content of th eir notifications to enable relevant comments by 
recipient Members. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 126  
 
  173. Notification on uses of living modified organisms  
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 72-74) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/9 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
499. Australia indicated that Japan's notifica tion regarding its proposed draft law on the 
conservation and sustainable use of living modified organisms raised a number of concerns.  Australia 
was a major grain exporter and was especially in terested in the documents which should accompany 
shipments.  Japan had not responded to Australia's query.  The United States was also concerned how 
Japan intended to implement the Cartagena Biosafet y Protocol and in particular the documentation 
requirements. 
500. Japan replied that it had ratified the Cartag ena Biosafety Protocol on 10 June 2003 and its 
measures were consistent with the agreement.  Ja pan would shortly provide responses to the questions 
it had received from Australia. 
 
224. Restrictions on EC exports of plant and animal products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Brazil 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1,  paras. 24-25), October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 74-75), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 74-75) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
501. In June 2005, the European  Communities raised concerns  with regard to Japanese 
phytosanitary administrative procedures governing the approval of agricultural imports.  The issue 
had been previously raised on a bilateral basis, but  the procedures continued to be consuming and not 
fully transparent.  To list a new variety of plant pr oducts, EC exporters were facing delays of two to 
three years.  The approval procedure for one plant wa s usually not valid for similar varieties although, 
in terms of plant health risk, there were al most no differences between them.  The European 
Communities requested that any future applicati on for similar plant species with similar plant 
production systems and pest status be considered as an extension of the original application. 
502. Other issues of concerns to th e European Communities included, inter alia , Japan's inspection 
procedures in the exporting country, phytosanitary im port regulations, and a sy stem of zero-tolerance 
for all pests not included in Japan's list of non-qu arantine organisms.  With regard to the animal 
sector, disease-free status recognition and health impor t certification were difficult.  The European  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 127 
 
 
  Communities invited Japan to review its internal administrative SPS procedures to make them more 
efficient and transparent.  Brazil also expressed concerns regarding Japanese approval procedures for 
plant varieties. 
503. Japan explained that it had already taken the necessary steps to fully comply with the SPS 
Agreement and a number of EC exports of fruits and vegetables were currently entering the Japanese 
market.  However, Japan remained open to discuss with the European Communities any specific issue 
justified by facts and figures in order to identify the source of the problem. 
504. In February 2006, the European Communities re ported that some progress had been made in 
consultations between Japan and some EC member St ates.  Japan noted that, risk assessments based 
on scientific evidence had been carried out.  Wh ere the assessments showed that the proposed 
measure met Japan's appropriate level of protectio n, import bans had been lifted or SPS measures 
eased.  The content and amount of data necessary for the risk assessment differed among species and 
according to regional conditions, so the duration of the assessment varied accordingly.  If the 
European Communities could be more specific about their concerns, Japan would try to address these 
through bilateral consultations. 
 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY REPUBLIC OF KOREA  Food safety 179. Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, New Zeal and, Philippines, Eu ropean Communities 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 11-14), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras. 40-42), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/ 34, paras. 46-48), October 2004 
(G/SPS/R/35, paras. 47-50), March 2005  (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 71-73)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/123, G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
505. In October 2003, the United States expressed c oncern that Korea's changed import regulation 
was onerous and not supported by science.  Unde r the new import inspection programme imported 
grains, fruits and vegetables would be subjected  to annual MRL tests for the presence of 196 
agricultural chemicals.  Importers would have to bear the US$1,800 cost of such tests, whereas 
domestic producers were exempt from the mandatory testing requirements.  Domestic producers were 
subject to random test for which the Korean Gove rnment bore the costs.  Australia, the European 
Communities and New Zealand also requested Korea to amend the measure which they described was 
contrary to Annex C of the SPS Agreement. 
506. Korea responded that it had amended the regul ations to meet its appropriate level of 
protection and noted that there were no comments on the issue when the SPS notification was circulated at the beginning of the year.  Technical de velopments had reduced the cost of testing and as G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 128  
 
  such Korea planned to considerably reduce the t esting fees.  The United States replied that it had 
submitted comments on Korea's notification in Marc h and had two meetings in September with 
Korean officials regarding this issue. 
507. In March 2004, the United States stated that th ey were informed during bilateral meetings 
held with Korea that test fees would be reduced.  However, the Korean authorities had not finalized 
this decision nor addressed the issue satisfactorily.  Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the European 
Communities stated that Korea's testing regime  would impose substantial costs on imports and 
discriminated between imported products and simila r products produced in Korea.  Korea replied that 
the relevant administrative procedures to redu ce the testing fees were underway and would be 
completed in two to three weeks, but  not later than the end of April. 
508. In June 2004, the United States commented that  under Korea's import inspection programme, 
importers would bear the cost of the testing fees, now estimated at US$1-2,000 each.  While the United States recognized Korea's attempts to mo dify their requirements through the issuance of 
notifications G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 in 2004, the proposed fee for testing would still be twice as large as that proposed by Korea's Food and Drug Administration.  Although the number of chemicals 
subject to mandatory testing had been reduced fro m 196 to 47, domestic producers were still exempt 
from the mandatory testing requirement.  Thus, Ko rea's import inspection pr ogram was inconsistent 
with national treatment provisions of the WTO.  D espite bilateral discussions over the past year, the 
United States perceived insufficient progress on this issue and hoped for more significant progress in the future. Australia, Canada and the European  Communities expressed similar concerns.  Korea 
emphasized that both the testing fees and the numbe r of agricultural chemicals for which mandatory 
testing was required had been subs tantially reduced.  In order to provide testing exemptions based 
upon compliance history, the relevant regulations would need to be revised. 
509. In October 2004, the United States stated many of  its concerns still re mained.  For example, 
Korea had proposed in G/SPS/N/KOR/154 that imported  foods with clean records would be exempted 
from the mandatory laboratory inspections.  However, the proposed exemptions had not been put into 
effect in the final revised regulations.  Furthe rmore, although Korea had reduced the number of 
chemicals subject to mandatory laboratory inspecti on from 196 to 47, testing fees of approximately 
US$500 per test were still applied.  Domestic producers were still onl y subject to random testing and 
the costs were borne by the Korean government.  The US concerns were directly related to 
distinctions in fees between imported goods and lik e-products produced in Korea in accordance with 
Annex C of the SPS Agreement.  The European Communities shared the concerns of the United 
States as the European Communities had also been a ffected by Korea's testing requirements.  Korea's 
measures as notified in G/SPS/N/KOR/123 were sti ll being implemented and the amendments as 
notified in G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 did not have a proposed implementation date.  Korea's current 
testing requirements were disproportionate to th e risks and were discriminatory against imported 
products.  Korea was requested to remove these restri ctive measures and to ali gn them to international 
standards. 
510. Korea stated that it would take some time to  revise the relevant legislation needed to 
implement the measures notified in G/SPS/N/KO R/154 and 155.  The testing fee had been 
substantially reduced and was now one-third the cost of the previous fee.  However, the fee was still 
two times higher than what was proposed in Oc tober 2003 because the domestic industry was 
concerned that the proposed testing fee was not sufficient to compensate for testing requirements 
needed to ensure the safety of foods.  Testing fees would be adjusted in th e future when the need 
arose.  Korea applied strict guidelines to domestic products with respect to the use of agro-chemicals 
and did not discriminate between imported and dome stically produced products.  Korea took note of 
the concerns of the United States, particularly with reference to Annex C of the SPS Agreement.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 129 
 
 
  511. In March 2005, the United States noted that although Korea had proposed exemption from 
mandatory laboratory inspection for imported food w ith a clean record, the proposed exemption had 
not been included in the final revised regulation.   Furthermore, the fee for mandatory laboratory 
inspection (approximately US$500) remained as a barri er to new products and was still twice as large 
as that initially proposed by the Korean Food and Drug Administration in October 2003.  Domestic 
producers were exempted from the mandatory testing requirements but subjected to random tests.  
However, the Korean Government bore all the co sts for these tests.  The United States had held 
bilateral consultations with Korea for nearly two years, and further consultations were scheduled.  The 
European Communities and the Philippi nes shared the concerns of the United States.  The Philippines 
indicated that the requirements would be particular ly burdensome for developing countries, and asked 
Korea to take developing countries exporters into special consideration. 
512. Korea noted that the revised regulation to implem ent this measure would come into effect this 
year.  The proposed testing fee had been review ed following a public hearing process.  Some 
interested groups had expressed the view that the proposed testing fee would not be enough to 
compensate the cost of the testing.  Korea had carefully reviewed the various opinions and had 
decided on the level of the testing fee.  That level was two times higher than the proposed one, yet 
about one fourth the level initially proposed.  If n ecessary, the testing fee would be adjusted in the 
future. 
 
Animal Health 
65. Import restrictions on beef 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 13-14) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/109 and G/SPS/GEN/130 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
513. Argentina raised concerns regarding Korea's denial of access to Argentine beef without 
specifying its sanitary requirements or visiting Argen tina to verify its sanitary status.  Korea replied 
that since it had been free of FMD for 60 years, it applied very strict requirements.  Korea believed it 
was acting consistently with OIE recommendations, and offered to discuss the matter bilaterally. 
 
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free co untries – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, page 1] 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 130  
 
  247. BSE-related measures on beef products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, paras. 15-18) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
514. In February 2007, Canada recalled that in r esponse to finding a case of BSE in Canada in 
May 2003, Korea had implemente d a ban on imports of beef fro m Canada.  Cana da had taken 
effective measures to control the risk of BSE, of ten exceeding OIE standards.  Furthermore, the OIE 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code indicated that no restrictions should be applied on boneless beef from 
animals aged 30 months or less, regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country.  More than 30 trading partners had resumed importing Canadian b eef, but Korea continued to block imports.  In 
January 2007, Canada ha d, under Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreem ent, formally requested Korea to 
provide a justification for this measure.  Canada was disappointed in Korea' s response, which was to 
request additional information.  On the basis of the information already provided to Korea, other 
trading partners had assessed risks and concluded that Canadian beef was safe to import.  The 
information has also been sufficien t for the OIE Central Bureau to determine Canada's BSE status.  
Canada requested Korea to lift its restrictions and grant access to Canadian beef according to the OIE 
guidelines. 
515. The European Communities indicated that they shared Canada's concerns and were facing 
similar problems with Korea.  This was not a new issue.  The European Co mmunities strongly urged 
all Members to apply the OIE standards, especially with respect to BSE. 
516. Korea stated that import restrictions had b een imposed on certain products due to the BSE 
outbreak in Canada.  Korea had taken the necessary st eps to permit the resumption of beef trade.  It 
was clear that under the terms of the SPS Agre ement Korea could assess the risk from each Member 
individually.  The risk analysis on Canadian m eat had been delayed when new BSE cases were 
reported in January 2006.  Korea was concerned that there might be a problem related to the 
effectiveness of the feed ban measures, and the c ontinued appearance of cases raised questions that 
had not been clearly answered by Canada.  Howe ver, in accordance with Article 5, Korea would 
continue to discuss this matter with Canada. 
517. Canada stressed that the OIE Code allowed for trade in boneless beef from animals below 
30 months regardless of the BSE status of the expor ting country.  The few cases of BSE in cattle born 
after the feed ban had no epidemiological significan ce.  Although Canada was willing to provide any 
relevant information required, it had been unaware that there were any outstanding requests for 
information. 
 
248. Regionalization for bovine and pig meat products 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 131 
 
 
  Dates raised: February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44,  paras. 19-20), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, 
paras. 40-41) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
518. In February 2007, Brazil raised concerns rega rding the lack of recognition of provisions on 
regionalization by Korea.  This raised serious doubts about the criteria used by Korea for its risk assessment and for establishing its appropriate level of protection (A LOP).  Despite various requests, 
Korea never informed Brazil about the sanitary import requirements for beef and pig meat, but 
claimed that specific import conditions could not be established because Brazil was not free of FMD.  This requirement was not in compliance with the OI E guidelines, nor with Articles 3, 5 and 7 of the 
SPS Agreement.  The OIE did not establish differe nt import requirements for meat from areas free 
from FMD whether with or without vaccination.  Brazil sought to export meat from a zone free of 
FMD without vaccination, but Korea refused to discu ss this issue before FMD was eradicated from all 
of Brazil without vaccination.  Korea should provi de the risk assessment which supported this 
measure, which did not conform to Article 6.  Brazil appreciated the information on import 
procedures recently provided by Korea, but this  did not meet Brazil's request.  Korea required 
completion of a questionnaire and an on-site visit just to establish import requirements, whereas this was justified only in order to recognize disease-free stat us or evaluate veterinary services.  Although a 
Member could determine its ALOP, the measure take n must have a scientific justification and be 
based on a risk assessment.  It was also disappointin g that Korea appeared to not even recognize the 
concept of regionalization. 
519. Korea responded that it accepted the concept of regionalization as contained in Article 6, 
based on factors such as geography, etc, and this w as included in Korea's import policy.  However, 
Korea had not yet applied this policy with respect to FMD.  Korea had experienced an FMD outbreak 
in 2002-2003, and had subsequently regained its stat us as FMD-free without vaccination at great cost.  
Because of this, Korea was very concerned about  FMD and required suppliers to be free of FMD 
without vaccination.  FMD outbreaks in several areas of Brazil in 2005 and again in 2006 led Korea to 
conclude that the FMD situation in Brazil was unsta ble, and that Brazil needed to establish FMD-free 
zones through strict measures.  Korean authorities were ready to continue discussing this matter with 
Brazil at the expert level. 
520. In June 2007, Brazil stated that althoug h Korea claimed to accept the concept of 
regionalization in general, it continued to refuse to  apply regionalization in practice for FMD.  This 
was contrary to both the SPS Agreement, and the OI E Code.  If Korea wanted to maintain a measure 
that reflected a higher ALOP than that provided by  the relevant international standard, Korea should 
provide the risk assessment supporting its measur e.  However, Brazil had not received any such 
information from Korea, and there had been no bi lateral progress towards resolving the problem.  
Members should give full weight to the mechanis m for raising specific trade concerns in the 
Committee;  they should seek to resolve these probl ems and to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade. 
521. Korea noted that an outbreak of FMD in Korea could bring social disruption and cause 
serious economic damage.  Korean authorities were  engaged in assessing the risk of importing heat-
treated beef from all of Brazil, taking into account  the OIE Code.  Korea had sent a questionnaire in 
December 2006, and was awaiting Brazi l's response.  Korea was committe d to continue bilateral talks 
to resolve this concern in a cooperative manner. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 132  
 
   
Plant Health 
174. Notification on transboundary movement of living modified organisms 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 72-74) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/49 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
522. Australia indicated that Korea's notifica tion on the transboundary movement of living 
modified organisms raised a number of concerns .  Australia was a major grain exporter and was 
especially interested in the documents which s hould accompany shipments.  Korea had responded to 
Australia's query, and Australia was examining this  response.  The United States was also concerned 
how Korea intended to implement the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and in particular the 
documentation requirements. 
523. Korea stated that it was acting in line with th e transparency requirements and would continue 
to do so. 
 
Other concerns 
13. Translation of regulations 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Thailand 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, para. 26) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/1, G/SPS/N/KOR/29, G/SPS/N/KOR/20, G/SPS/N/KOR/31 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
524. Argentina regretted that the regulations notified by Japan and Korea were not available in one 
of the three WTO working languag es.  The Chairman recalled that Annex B, paragraph 8 of the SPS 
Agreement requires developed country Members to "p rovide copies of the documents or, in case of 
voluminous documents, summaries of the documents covered by a specific notification in English, 
French or Spanish", if there is a specific requ est from another Member.  Japan observed that it 
normally provided summaries of the documents in E nglish.  Thailand suggested that countries give 
sufficient detail in the description of content of th eir notifications to enable relevant comments by 
recipient Members.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 133 
 
 
   
KUWAIT 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY KUWAIT 
Food safety 165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar 
and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 18] 
 
MEXICO 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY MEXICO 
Animal Health 
67. Import restrictions on beef 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 12) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/109 and G/SPS/GEN/129 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
525. Argentina indicated it had not received a satisfact ory answer to repeated requests that Mexico 
provide information on its specific sanitary requi rements for beef imports and the related risk 
assessments.  Argentina recalled that it was free of FMD.  Mexico took note of Argentina's concerns 
and expressed hope to resolve the matter bilaterally. 
 
163. Restrictions on Austrian products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  36-37), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 42) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 134  
 
  526. The European Communities stated that Fran ce, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United 
Kingdom had officially regained their OIE FMD-free status without vaccination after the 2001 outbreak.  However, Mexico continued trade restric tions against Austrian animal products, despite the 
fact that Austria had not had a FMD outbreak since 1991.  Austria had applied to be recognized as 
FMD-free by the Mexican authorities.  Mexico i ndicated that Austria failed to meet certain 
requirements to be recognized as FMD-free and enc ouraged the Austrian authorities to complete a 
second questionnaire requesting more details. 
527. In June 2003, the European Communities reported that bilateral consultations had been held, 
and Mexico confirmed that it expected  the issue to be resolved soon. 
 225. Restrictions on US poultry 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1,  paras. 26-29), March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, 
paras. 41-43) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MEX/200 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
528. In June 2005, the United States stated that Mexico was banning imports of poultry and 
poultry products from an entire US state in whic h cases of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) had 
been reported in some areas.  Mexico also require d avian influenza (AI) testing for layer and broiler 
flocks regardless of whether or not AI had been re ported.  Only two subtyp es of AI (H5 and H7) had 
been found to mutate into the highly pathogenic forms of the disease.  Low pathogenic strains of AI did not cause systemic disease and had not been shown to be of consequence for animal health or food 
safety.  The OIE did not recommend any trade restric tions on poultry and poultry products when cases 
of low pathogenic strains of AI of non-H5 and H7 subtypes were reported and only limited measures 
for low pathogenic strains of the H5 and H7 subtype s.  The relevant scientific evidence showed that 
the LPAI virus did not appear in th e muscle tissue of an infected chic ken and that neither fresh meat 
nor eggs imported from regions affected by low pathogenic AI posed a risk of transmitting the 
disease.  Given the scientific evidence underpinning  the recently-adopted changes in the relevant 
international standard, the United States encouraged  Mexico to modify its import restrictions and 
testing requirements. 
529. Canada indicated that in March 2004, Mexico  had banned the importation of poultry and its 
products from all of Canada in response to the findi ngs of high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in 
British Colombia.  Canada had kept all trading part ners fully informed of the control measures it had 
imposed to limit the outbreak to British Colombia.  Unlike many of its trading partners, Mexico had 
not regionalized its measures to apply to British Co lombia only.  Canada had now been free of HPAI 
for over one year and had provided all the informati on requested by Mexico to verify this status in 
accordance with OIE guidelines.  Consistent with the OIE, the majority of Canada's trading partners 
had removed their measures against Canadian poultry.   Canada called upon Mexico to do the same. 
530. Mexico explained that since May 1994, when low pathogenicity avian influenza (LPAI) had 
been detected in Mexico, specific SPS measures ha d been applied to prevent exotic subtypes and  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 135 
 
 
  control and eradicate the only su btype identified, H5N2.  Mexican Official Standard NOM-44-ZOO-
1995, which covered any subtype of avian influen za (AI), both low and high pathogenic strains, had 
been published in 1995.  In the United States, vari ous subtypes of low and high pathogenic strains had 
been officially identified, none of which, with the exception of one, existed in the Mexican poultry 
sector.  The sanitary requirements established by the Mexican legislation in the domestic poultry 
sector were equivalent to those applied for the export of poultry and poultry products originating in 
the states affected by AI in the United States.  However, the sanitary measures aimed at ensuring 
epidemiological surveillance and monitoring of the transport of poultry and poultry products applied 
in the affected states of the United States were not  equivalent to those implemented in the Mexican 
poultry sector.  As the risk of transmission of AI w as particularly high in live poultry and less in fresh 
poultry products and by-products, importation of so me poultry products from the quarantined states 
was allowed.  Mexico was continuing to analyze the technical information provided by the United 
States with a view to the opening up of exports of poultry and poultry prod ucts.  This additional 
information had been provided by the USDA during the first quarter of 2005. 
531. Mexico recalled that the OIE in May 2005 a dopted regulations (Chapter 2.17.12: AI, 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code) that stipulated that  all H7 and H5 subtypes of AI viruses, in both its 
high and low pathogenic forms, were notifiable as well as any AI virus with an intravenous 
pathogenicity index (IVPI) greater than 1.2.  These re gulations also stipulated that a country, zone or 
compartment could be recognized as free from the notifiable high and low pathogenic forms of AI virus.  In accordance with Articles 2.1, 2.2, an d 2.3 of the SPS Agreement,  Mexico had established 
the health requirements for exporting poultry and p oultry by-products from and originating in areas 
free of notifiable AI viruses or free only of highly pathogenic notifiable AI viruses.  Mexico currently 
allowed imports of poultry, poultry products and by-products from the United States, except for birds 
and some products from the states affected by a s ubtype of AI.  Regarding Canada, Mexico explained 
that  following an outbreak of highly pathogenic AI of the H7N3 subtype in British Colombia, the 
province had been quarantined and technical inform ation requested concerning  the outbreak.  That 
same month, Mexico had received information identif ying the AI virus in ducks and in geese as low 
pathogenic.  In June 2005, it had received information identifying the low pathogenicity virus of the 
subtype H3, also in British Colombia, and would ca rry out an assessment of the health situation in 
respect of AI in British Colombia. 
532. In March 2006, the United States expressed a ppreciation that a bilateral agreement with 
Mexico in August 2005 had resulted in the remova l of bans on US poultry in October 2005.  
However, in January 2006 Mexico had published a final measure that would modify the existing 
import conditions previously agreed upon.  This final measure had not been notified to the SPS 
Committee.  The United States requested Mexico to no tify this final measure and delay its application 
while allowing Members sufficient time to comment  on the measure before its implementation. 
533. Mexico indicated that a draft amendment to the 2004 Mexican regulation had been published 
in notification G/SPS/N/MEX/200, for which Me xico had provided a period for comments by 
Members.  Mexico had received comments, inter alia , from the US Department of Agriculture.  This 
notification indicated that the date of entry into  force was proposed as the day following publication 
of the final regulation.  The final regulation ha d been published on 30 January 2006 and had been 
notified to the North American Free Trade Agreem ent (NAFTA) contact point on the same day.  
However, Mexico had decided to delay the entry in to force of the measure for 60 days, meaning that 
the regulation would come into force in April 2006. 
534.
 Mexico further reported that following a m eeting on 8 December 2005 between Mexican and 
US officials, the National Health Service author ized the use of the Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent 
Assay (ELISA) technique and equivalent mechanisms to validate different types of AI.  In Mexico, 
only the AI subtype H5N2, a low pathogen type, had been detected and it was important for Mexico 
to avoid the introduction of any other types of AI. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 136  
 
   
NEW ZEALAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND Animal Health 84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free co untries – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, page 1] 
 
OMAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY OMAN Food safety 
165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar 
and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 18] 
 
PANAMA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA 
Food safety 
83. Restrictions on milk powder imports 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20,  paras. 15-16), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
para. 135) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/220 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
535. In November 2000, the European Communities indicated that since April 2000 the 
Panamanian authorities had delayed issuing the necessary import permits and certificates for the 
import of milk powder for human cons umption from Denmark, resulting in a de facto  ban on these 
products.  No explanation had been provided in  response to EC requests, and no notification 
submitted to the WTO.  The European Communities re quested a response by Pa nama to the questions 
contained in G/SPS/GEN/220.  The representative of Panama agreed to submit the questions to his 
capital, and indicated the willingness of Panama to  consult with the European Communities on this 
matter.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 137 
 
 
  536. In July 2001, Panama informed the Committe e that it had provided responses to the EC 
questions regarding powdered milk from Denmark.  In these responses, Panama reiterated that it 
applied the same sanitary measures to domestic and imported products.  The European Communities 
indicated that the Commission would study the answers and report back to Panama. 
 Animal Health 149. Restrictions on food products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G /SPS/R/28, paras. 195-196) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
537. The European Communities stated  that Panama had instituted a range of severe measures on 
imports of animal products.  Although the law was intended to address risks related to FMD, BSE, 
Newcastle disease and other exotic diseases, the Eu ropean Communities considered the law to be 
disproportionate and not science-based.  In additio n, the measure had not been notified.  Panama 
indicated that it hoped to be able to provide a prompt response. 
 
187. FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil, Costa Rica 
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, pa ras. 16-17), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 56-57), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 50-51), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 173- 174), October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 83-87), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 83-87) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
538. In March 2004, Argentina raised concerns on two measures adopted by Panama to prohibit 
the imports of certain products due to FMD.  On 19 March 2001, Panama issued a resolution to 
restrict the imports of animals and by-products fro m Europe and South America with the exception of 
Chile.  On 1 August 2001, Pana ma amended its penal code th rough Law 44.  Neither measure 
complied with OIE recommendations.  However, duri ng bilateral consultations  held on 16 March 
2004, Panama had proposed amending Law 44 to eliminate these restrictions.  Panama confirmed the 
positive outcome of the bilateral meeting and indi cated discussions with Argentina would continue. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 138  
 
  539. In October 2004, Argentina informed the Committee that Argentina had received positive 
news on the issue of Panama's r estrictions on dairy products and was hopeful of a resolution by the 
next Committee meeting.  Panama stated that bilatera l consultations were held with Argentina prior to 
the Committee meeting and was optim istic of resolving the issue. 
540. In March 2005, Argentina recalled that in Oc tober 2004, a bilateral agreement had been 
negotiated with Panama whereby officials from Pana ma would carry out a visit to establish the safety 
of Argentina's milk products.  The visit had not yet taken place and Argentina dairy products 
continued to be prevented from entering Panama. 
541. Panama noted that it permitted imports of agri cultural products if the country of origin 
showed objectively that its sanitary measures guarant eed the same level of protection as the sanitary 
measures established in the regulations  of Panama.  The legislation in Panama required that imports of 
animal products from countries affected by exotic illn esses be preceded by a ri sk analysis undertaken 
by the Panamanian authorities, based on the methodologies recommended by the international 
organizations of which Panama was a member.  The inspection of establishments in the exporting 
country was part of the process to determine the sa nitary situation of the country.  Argentina was 
invited to develop a plan of action so that Pa nama could carry out the visits in Argentina. 
542. In June 2005, Argentina reported that the visit of the Panamanian authorities had not yet taken 
place, although Argentina had responded to a questi onnaire.  Furthermore, Panama subsequently 
added a registration requirement for firms interest ed in exporting dairy products to Panama for tax 
purposes.  Argentina asked Panama to adjust its sanit ary requirements to those in the OIE Code and to 
modify its administrative requirements. 
543. Panama replied that Argentina's request was clo se to completion.  Registration of interested 
firms was indeed required, and as soon as these steps were completed, Panamanian officials would be 
able to visit Argentine plants to finalize the procedure. 
544. In February 2006, Argentina stated that the vi sits to dairy plants still had not occurred.  
Companies wishing to export to Panama were require d to be registered in Panama and the veterinary 
evaluation services of an exporting country had to be authenticated by the Panamanian competent 
authorities, supposedly to avoid "ghost companies" .  Argentina reiterated its request that Panama 
bring its regulations into line w ith the OIE Code, remove the bureaucratic barriers to market access 
and be transparent about its administration procedures. 
545. Brazil noted that it had recently had problems relating to the administrative procedures 
established by Panama for certain Brazilian products .  Costa Rica also expressed hope that products 
from Costa Rican dairy plants still undergoing inspection would soon have access to Panama. 
546. Panama maintained that its sanitary risk asse ssment methodology was in full compliance with 
both the SPS Agreement and the OIE standards.  Compliance with Panama's requirements for the 
export of dairy products was not limited to the inspection of certain dairy processing plants but 
required the exporting country to objectively de monstrate this compliance.  Once Panama had 
received the information demonstrating Argentina's compliance with Panama's requirements, a risk 
analysis would be carried out in order to  re-establish the trade in dairy products. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 139 
 
 
  214. Inspection regime for food processing establishments 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 25-27) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/PAN/1, G/SPS/N/PAN/28, G/SPS/N/PAN/37 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
547. The United States indicated that Panama had broadened its establishment inspection 
requirements to most food processing establishments  in January 2005, without notifying the WTO and 
providing interested Members an opportunity to comme nt.  This was in contradiction with Article 7 
and Annex B of the SPS Agreement.  In addition, Panama had not provided any risk assessment that 
supported these new measures, despite formal requests by  the United States.  Canada recalled that it 
also had experienced problems in the past w ith the establishment-by-establishment accreditation 
approach used by Panama, and urged Panama to c onsider the quicker and less expensive alternative 
approach of systems approval. 
548. Panama pointed out that this regime had been notified to the SPS Committee and Members 
provided an opportunity to comment on it (G/SPS/N/PAN/1, G/SPS/N/PAN/28 and G/SPS/N/PAN/37).  This was the first time, since th e implementation of Panama's inspection regime 
for the inspection of food establishments in 1995, that  an issue in relation with this system had been 
raised at the WTO.  Panama's legislation required that imports of animals and animal products from 
countries affected by exotic illnesses be subject to a risk analysis carried out by Panamanian health 
authorities because Panama, as a hub for world trade tran sit, was exposed to a greater risk of illness 
from exotic animals and plants. 
 
PHILIPPINES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PHILIPPINES 
Plant Health 119. Notification on Chinese fruit imports 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 141) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/PHL/35 and Add.1 
Solution: Temporary ban lifted on the condition that those places identified as 
sources of infested exports undertake tr eatment to effectively kill the insect
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 140  
 
  549. China reported that the Philippines had applie d an emergency restriction on imports of fruit 
from China, notified in G/SPS/N/PHL/35.  The notification indicated that the measure was imposed because codling moth had been detected in imports of certain fruits.  However, technical experts of 
both countries had re-identified the intercepted ins ect as peach fruit moth, a common pest.  On this 
basis, the Philippines lifted the quarantine ban, but the addendum to the notification did not clarify the 
mistaken identification of the pest (G/SPS/N/PHL/35/Add.1). 
550. The Philippines confirmed that further investiga tion had revealed that the intercepted insect 
was not codling moth, but Carposina nipponensis , a species not previously known in the Philippines.  
The Philippines had lifted the temporary ban on the condition that those places identified as sources of 
infested exports would undertake treatment to effe ctively kill the insect.  This decision was reflected 
in the addendum to the notification, although the Phil ippines agreed to furthe r correct the information 
provided in the notification, to avoid confusion and possible unnecessary restrictions on Chinese agricultural products by other Members. 
 
POLAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY POLAND 
Plant Health 25. Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds (The stat us of this concern is being reviewed in the 
light of Poland's membership in the European Communities as of 1 May 2004.) 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, par as. 13-14), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
para. 27), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
551. In March 1997, the United States questioned the phytosanitary health basis for Poland's 
restrictions which applied to weed seeds that existed world-wide, some of them known to be 
established in Poland.  Poland replied that the measur e did not affect trade with the United States, as 
no shipment of US grain or oilseeds had been reje cted because of quarantine risks.  In November 
1998, the Chairman reported that he and the Secret ariat had been requested to facilitate bilateral 
consultations between the United States and Pola nd regarding tolerance levels for weed seed, 
particularly of the genus Ambrosia.  These consulta tions had focused on technical aspects of pest risk 
analysis, and both parties had agreed to continue the discussions. 
552. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with 
Poland. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 141 
 
 
  QATAR 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY QATAR Food safety 165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar 
and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 18] 
 
ROMANIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA Food safety 134. SPS measures on animal products 
Raised by: Moldova 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 35-37) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/334 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
553. Moldova indicated that Romania had begun to impose EC requirements on imports of meat 
and animal products although Romania di d not meet these requirements domestically 
(G/SPS/GEN/334).  As a result, meat, milk and egg exports from Moldova were  in effect banned from 
the Romanian market, which normally absorbed abou t 80 per cent of Moldova agricultural exports.  
Romania had not provided any scientific justification for its measure.  Its failure to notify the measure 
meant that exporters had not had any time to adap t to the new requirements.  China expressed support 
for the concerns expressed by Moldova and urged Romania to review its measures in this area. 
554. Romania argued that the measure in question was a result of its harmonization with the 
"acquis communautaire" of the European Union, and was necessary to ensure consumer protection.  
Romania stated that this was not a new SPS measure,  so it had not been notified.  Nonetheless, the 
Romanian Ministry of Agriculture was consideri ng ways to address the difficulties posed to Moldova 
from its implementation. 
 
245. Restrictions on US pork and poultry imports 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 25-27), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, 
paras. 38-39) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 142  
 
  Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
555. In October 2006, the United States expressed c oncern about Romania's decision to already 
impose EC requirements on US poultry and pork, in advance of Romania's entry into the European Communities.  This resulted in large financial losses to US exporters.  The United States noted that no 
poultry and only two pork facilities in Romania met EC requirements.  Romania's measures therefore 
raised potential national treatment concerns, given that a considerable number of Romanian meat 
plants were currently not in compliance with the EC regulations and many of the plants had been 
granted a transition period to 2009 to meet these requirements. 
556. Romania expressed surprise that the United Stat es had raised this issue as an acceptable 
solution to both parties had been sought during a ser ies of bilateral meetings.  Although Romania had 
decided to extend the implementation date of these regulations for US exports, the new regulations 
were adopted as part of the requirements for Ro mania's accession to the European Communities.  
According to the Accession Treaty signed on 25 April 2005, Romania had committed to adopt the EC 
legislation and was expected to fully comply with  SPS legislation already in force in the European 
Communities before its accession on 1 January 2007.  Romania noted the difficulty it faced in 
modifying and implementing these new rules, but indicated that Romanian producers observed the 
same rules as other EC member States and third coun tries.  To ensure transparency and give Members 
the opportunity to prepare for the new import conditions, all Romanian legislation on import 
conditions for pork and poultry meat ha d been notified to the SPS Committee. 
557. The European Communities sugg ested that the United States should look at the broader 
benefits of Romania's and Bulgaria's accession to  the European Communities.  This was fully 
supported by the global community and provided an outstanding opportunity for the Members 
concerned to strengthen economic  growth and development. 
558. In June 2007, the United States observed that prior to Romania's accession to the European 
Communities, the United States had successfully ex ported pork and poultry products to Romania.  
Since accession, poultry exports had ceased, while exports of pork and red meat had been drastically 
reduced.  Although product imported into Romani a was now required to meet EC standards, 
Romanian-produced goods benefited from a derogation until 2009.  This appeared to be a direct 
violation of Article 2 of the SPS Agreement. 
559. The European Communities observed that the i ssue had arisen because producers in countries 
which became members of the European Communiti es were required to either comply with the 
existing EC regulations or close.  A limited num ber of Romanian establishments had been given a 
brief derogation while they chose to either upgrad e their facilities or to close these down.  The 
derogation was subject to strict conditions and these establishments were permitted to sell their 
products only in Romania.  The United States s hould exercise some patience and understanding given 
the low living standards in Romania, which had so  recently joined the Euro pean Communities.  The 
immediate closure of all of these establishments would exacerbate the high unemployment situation of Romania. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 143 
 
 
  SLOVAK REPUBLIC 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SLOVAK REPUBLIC Food safety 9. Zero-tolerance for salmone lla in imported poultry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Slovak Republic [See Item 9, page 32] 
 
SOUTH AFRICA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA Animal Health 43. Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from EC member States 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, par as. 32-33), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and 
Corr.1, paras. 19-21) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ZAF/2, G/SPS/GEN/95 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
560. In March 1998, the European Communities noted that the South African ban on beef imports 
applied to all EC member States.  This was unjustif ied in light of measures taken at EC and national 
level in countries were BSE cases had occurred.  In addition, South African requirements were not in 
accordance with OIE standards.  South Africa stress ed that the European Communities were a major 
supplier of meat to South Africa, and that South Africa had no interest in having consumers consider 
EC meat as unsafe.  However, South Africa wanted to maintain its BSE-free status, and protect human 
and animal health.  South Africa invited the Eu ropean Communities to provide written comments. 
561. In September 1998, the European Communities agai n raised this issue.  South Africa replied 
that written comments from the European Communiti es had only recently been received.  In March 
and July 1998, South Africa had provided to the European Communities a written explanation of the 
measure in question.  Furthermore, South Afri ca had reiterated its invitation to the European 
Communities to submit evidence which would permit a re-evaluation of its decision, possibly on an 
individual EC member State basis.  In accordance with Article 5.7, South Africa would review its 
measure in the light of additional information.  The European Communities recognized that it had yet 
to provide a written reply to South Africa's request  for information, and welcomed the invitation for 
bilateral discussions of the issue. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 144  
 
  135. Restrictions on beef and pork 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras 19-20), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
para. 176) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Imports of meat and pork from Brazilian regions free of FMD authorized. 
Problems remaining concerning administrative procedures for meat products. 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
562. Brazil stated that in February 2002, South Africa had suspended imports of beef and pork 
from Brazil, because FMD vaccination was practiced th ere.  South Africa's import ban was not based 
on the OIE standards nor on scientific evidence or ri sk assessment nor had the measure been notified.  
Brazil requested South Africa to lift the ban and accept the risk mitigation procedures established by 
the OIE.  South Africa indicated that they were co mmitted to bilateral consultations with a view to 
find a quick solution to the problem.  In November 2002, Brazil reported that South Africa had authorized imports of meat and pork from Brazilian regions free of FMD.  Some difficulties remained 
regarding administrative procedures for meat produc ts, but were expected to be resolved soon. 
 
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
(CHINESE TAIPEI) 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI 
Animal Health 227. BSE-related import restrictions on non-ruminant products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 30-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
563. In June 2005, the United States raised concer ns regarding the BSE-related import prohibition 
imposed by Chinese Taipei on non-ruminant rende red meals except fishmeal, and all spray-dried 
animal products except dairy products  and certain porcine products made  in specified plants.  For over 
five years, the United States had been providing signi ficant scientific information to the animal health 
authorities of Chinese Taipei to allow the resumption of this trade.  Chinese Taipei had not provided  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 145 
 
 
  any scientific justification exceeding the relevant in ternational standards.  Bilateral discussions just 
prior to the meeting gave hope of fi nding a mutually satisfactory solution. 
564. The European Communities requested that Chin ese Taipei and other countries fully adopt the 
new recommendations of the OIE Code.  The cl earer and simpler provisions of the OIE Code 
specifically allowed trade of beef products derived from de-boned skeletal muscle meat from animals 
under 30 months of age. 
565. Chinese Taipei pointed out that Chinese Taipei's  concerns focused primarily on the possibility 
of cross-contamination with material of ruminant  origin.  The implementation of the US system 
needed careful evaluation and verification by on-site  inspections.  Based on risk analysis results, the 
importation of fish products, hydr olyzed proteins derived from pro cessing meals, spray-dried proteins 
and plasma proteins from the United States were not currently prohibited.  Chinese Taipei's SPS 
measures were designed to ensure the safe trade of animal and animal products in accordance with the 
concept of an appropriate level of protection and did not exceed the OIE guidelines.  Chinese Taipei was seeking a solution to the issue with the Un ited States.  Regarding the EC concern on beef, 
Chinese Taipei would respond to the European Communities in writing. 
 
Plant Health 
136. Policies regarding quarantine and non-quarantine pests  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras 33-34) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
566. The United States expressed concern that Chin ese Taipei's Plant Production and Quarantine 
Act did not distinguish between quarantine and no n-quarantine pests which was detrimental to US 
exports.  Chinese Taipei had agreed to amend this act , however this was expected to take some time. 
In response, Chinese Taipei indicated that problem s arose due to inconsistency between the Chinese 
and English version of the Act.  His authorities had agreed to amend the Act to bring it into 
conformity with the standards of the IPPC. 
567. In January 2005, Chinese Taipei reported that the Enforcement Rules on Plant Protection and 
Quarantine Act were revised in October 2003.  Th e phytosanitary measures applied only to regulated 
pests. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 146  
 
  THAILAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY THAILAND 
Food safety 215. Public Health Regulation 11 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Japan, New Zealand 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 42-44), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 45-47), Oc tober 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 59-
60), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 59-60) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/ N/THA/116 and addenda 1-5 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
568. In March 2005, the United States observed that Thailand had notified Public Health 
Regulation N° 11 to be implemented in Dece mber 2004 (G/SPS/N/THA/116).  In response to 
extensive comments, Thailand had de layed implementation to March 2005 
(G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add.1), but had not addressed the subs tantive issues raised by the United States.  
Many US fresh food products had been categorized in that Regulation as high risk with no scientific basis.  As a result, burdensome and costly tes ting and certification of compliance with pathogen 
requirements, and pesticides and heavy metals resi due levels were now requi red for US exports to 
enter the market.  The United States urged Thaila nd to suspend implementation of the Regulation 
until a science-based risk assessment for each  product affected had been conducted. 
569. New Zealand also expressed concerns about the testing and certification requirements of 
Regulation 11 and requested Thailand to  further delay the entry into force of the regulation in order to 
substantially amend it. 
570. Thailand indicated that the Regulation was part of a national strategic plan on food aimed at 
strengthening control measures for the safety and qu ality of Thai food from farm to table or export 
markets.  The Regulation was not intended to discriminate against imports. 
571. In June 2005, the United States recalled that Thailand had notified further revisions to 
Rule 11 on 23 May 2005, (G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add.3) leaving only 38 days for WTO Members to 
provide comments.  This was not sufficient for export ers to become familiar with the changes, nor for 
Members to submit comments, or for Thailand to cons ider comments that might have been provided.  
The United States still had substantial concerns abou t the scientific basis for Thailand's categorization 
of many US products as "high risk".  It was also still not clear whether Thailand would require 
certification and testing on domestic  products.  On 24 June 2005, the United States had been informed 
that the implementation of Rule 11 would be dela yed until 31 December 2005.  The United States 
appreciated these developments and encouraged Th ailand to develop measures consistent with the 
SPS Agreement to manage any documented risks. 
572. Japan observed that a national strategic plan on food, such as Rule 11, aimed at strengthening 
the control measures for the safety and quality of domestic and imported food, should be based on a 
science-based risk assessment and the working princi ples for risk analysis applied by the Codex  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 147 
 
 
  Alimentarius.  In order to a void unjustified trade barriers, risk management should ensure 
transparency and consistency in the decisi on-making process in all cases.  Japan requested 
information about the relationship between the pr oposed regulation and the related international 
standards. 
573. Thailand replied that the food standards that  would be applied throughout the country 
complied with the relevant international standards.   Requiring a health certificate was the best option 
to alleviate the burden on importers at the borde r and was in compliance with Codex standards.  
Thailand had addressed most of the comments re ceived from Members.  Some food standards 
inconsistent with the Codex had been withdrawn,  pending further science-based evaluation.  Thailand 
notified additional modifications on 12 July 2005 (G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add.4) and cancelled its 
notification on 12 January 2006 (G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add. 5) in order to undertake a complete review 
of Rule 11. 
574. In February 2006, the United States expressed appreciation for Thailand's several extensions 
and eventual cancellation of implementation of D ecree 11.  However, the underlying decree was still 
in place and its overall requirement that food must be proven to be safe through unspecified testing 
and certification processes remained of concern.  Th ailand was urged to reconsider the framework of 
the decree and to notify any changes sufficiently in advance for WTO Members to comment before 
final decisions were made. 
575. Thailand clarified that, on the basis of comments by some Members, the requirements for a 
food health certificate had been withdrawn and the current review focused on high risk food products.  
This review would be based on scientific risk ass essment.  Thailand was convinced that certifying 
healthy food on the basis of international standards was a way of facilitating trade.  Thailand was also 
willing to recognize the equivalence of other measu res. on the basis of international guidelines. 
 
Animal Health 
234. Suspension of importation of live poultry and poultry carcasses  
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 88-89), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 88-89) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
576. In February 2006, Mexico requested Thailand to conclude the emergency measures which had 
led to the temporary suspension of imports of  live poultry and poultry carcasses from the Mexican 
state of Durango.  The strain of avian influenza (A I) detected in the Mexican poultry products (H5N2) 
was low pathogenic.  In accordance with the OIE,  prior to implementing such measures, Thailand 
should have demonstrated that it was free of the low pathogenic strain at issue and that it had put in 
place a monitoring programmes able to detect this s ubtype despite the absence of clinical symptoms.  
Mexico's programme for AI control and eradication,  which had been in force for ten years, ensured 
the eradication of all subtypes of AI.  The st ate of Durango had complied with all the OIE G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 148  
 
  requirements to regain a disease-free status in th e case of a low pathogenic AI infection and was AI-
free for all subtypes.  Thailand should therefore remove its temporary restrictions. 
577. Thailand indicated that it had adopted a precauti onary approach since the AI outbreaks over 
the last two years.  Active surveillance had been put in place to control an d eradicate the disease.  
Areas at risk had been scanned and movements of  poultry and poultry products within the country 
were under control.  Thailand had temporarily  banned some Mexican poultry exports from the 
infected state only. 
 
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 
Animal Health 
151. Restrictions on imports of pork  sausages and other pork products 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 32-34), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29 
paras. 65-66), June 2003 (G/SPS/ R/30, paras. 45-46), October 2003 
(G/SPS/R/31, paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
578. Argentina reported that the health authorities from Trinidad and Tobago had provided two 
responses regarding import requirements for Argentine pork products, fresh cured or salted.  The first response indicated that imports of Argentine por k products were currently banned because of the 
FMD outbreak that had occurred in 2001, and that imports would not be able to resume until the 
health status of Argentina changed to that of a country free of FMD without vaccination.  The second 
response stated that imports of pork products we re allowed only from those countries that had FMD-
free status without vaccination for at least three year s before the date of export.  These requirements 
were stricter than the OIE Animal Health Code, l acked a scientific basis and were not proportionate to 
the objectives pursued.  Argentina a lifting of the ban and copies of the scientific evidence that 
justified the measure. 
579. Trinidad and Tobago indicated that the issue of importation of Argentine pork products had 
been the subject of ongoing bilateral consultati ons.  As a member of the Caribbean Community 
(CARICOM), Trinidad and Tobago adhered to a regi onal policy for the importation of meat and meat 
products according to which, in the event that  an exporting country had experienced an FMD 
outbreak, imports would only be allowed after disease-free status had been achieved without 
vaccination.  The regional decision reflected consensus among member States.  These requirements 
were transparent and applied in an equitable manner to all countries that had experienced FMD 
outbreaks.  Trinidad and Tobago reaffirmed the count ry's willingness to continue the bilateral process.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 149 
 
 
  580. In April 2003, Argentina reported that despite  the willingness of Trinidad and Tobago to 
engage in bilateral consultations, no progress had yet been achieved at the technical level.  Trinidad 
and Tobago explained that the OIE Code stated that affected products should not be accepted from 
vaccinated animals.  Re-opening of markets wa s based on consensus among CARICOM members.  
Accordingly, Argentina had been advised that the matter should be pursued through the CARICOM 
Secretariat, which Argentinal had done.  CARICOM was committed to finding a mutually agreeable 
solution and had convened a meeting of the region's chief veterinary officers to discuss the matter on 
7-8 April 2003.  It was expected that the matter would be fully resolved at the time. 
581. In June 2003, Argentina indicated that its au thorities had provided Trinidad and Tobago the 
information agreed upon after the last Committee meeting.  CARICOM was committed to sending a 
technical mission to Argentina with the aim of accepting Argentine exports.  Trinidad and Tobago 
confirmed that a risk assessment mission was expected to take place within the next two months. 
582. In October 2003, Argentina reported that since the last meeting, its authorities had provided 
information to Trinidad and Tobago on the foot-a nd-mouth disease status of Argentina.  However, a 
visit by three veterinarians from the CARICOM to  dairy factories and sausage production plants had 
been cancelled due to a new outbreak of FMD.  The representative of Trinidad and Tobago clarified 
that Argentina had postponed the trip, scheduled for 8-12 September, due to the appearance of an 
isolated case of FMD.  CARICOM had yet to be a dvised by Argentina of new dates for the visit.  
Trinidad and Tobago stated that its restriction would not be removed until the risk assessment was 
completed. 
 TURKEY CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY TURKEY 
Animal Health 48. Import ban on livestock 
Raised by: Hungary, United States 
Supported by: Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, para. 33), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 7-
10), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, paras.  12-14), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
para. 127), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 33), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 205-206), June 2003  (G/SPS/R/30, para. 67) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: The United States reported in July 2001 that its concerns were resolved. 
Hungary's concerns are outstanding. 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
583. In June 1998, the United States sought clarific ation from Turkey whether its FMD-related 
import ban on cattle and meat produc ts had ever been officially published or notified to the WTO.  
The United States requested an explanation of the measu re's scientific basis, especially in view of the 
FMD-free status of the United States.  In Septem ber 1998, the United States noted that Turkey had 
extended its import ban for the eighth time.  Turkey replied that the policy was geared at preventing G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 150  
 
  the spread of FMD in the country.  A rigorous na tion-wide eradication programme was in place, and 
considerable progress had been made.  Turkey belie ved that the application of temporary measures 
with the objective of creating the necessary animal h ealth conditions within its  borders was justified, 
but was open to dialogue with its trading part ners to reach a mutually agreeable solution. 
584. In June 2000, Hungary recalled that several Members had challenged the WTO-consistency 
of Turkey's import restrictions on live cattle and beef meat.  Hungary had been free from FMD for 
nearly 20 years, and had pursued FMD control policies which made vaccination redundant.  Hungary 
suggested the Turkish ban violated Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  Based on Articles 5.1 and 5.8, 
Hungary asked Turkey to provide its risk assessme nt on the importation of live cattle and beef from 
FMD-free countries.  New Zealand asked if Turkey had an import licensing system, and if so, how 
risk was assessed and how licenses were issued.  Tu rkey committed to providing a report on an 
interdepartmental review of the sanitary measures. 
585. In July 2001, the United States indicated th at Turkey had assured the United States in 
September 1999 that the import ban was no longer in force (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States considered this trade concern reso lved.  In October 2001, Hungary repor ted that its con cerns were still 
outstanding. 
586. In April 2003, Hungary again raised concerns over the on-going restrictions on imports of live 
cattle and beef maintained by Turkey.  Accordi ng to the OIE, Hungary had been free from FMD for 
nearly 20 years.  Hungarian live cattle and beef wa s also free from BSE.  Hungary had questioned this 
measure several times bilaterally and in the SPS Committee but had not received any explanation or 
risk assessment studies from Turkey.  Turkey e xplained that many coun tries had imposed import 
restrictions or bans on live animals and animal products originating from some European countries 
due to BSE and FMD to protect their public health and livestock.  Turkey had simply taken the same 
measures based on available information and to sa tisfy the widespread public concern over BSE. 
587. In June 2003, Turkey stated that cattle and beef imports from some EC member States and 
from Hungary had been temporarily suspended as ca ttle from these countries had not been vaccinated 
or achieved immunity against FMD and rinderpest whic h was present in Turkey at that time.  The ban 
had been lifted in 1999, however, due to BSE con cerns, the import of livestock had been partly 
banned again. 
 
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 
Food safety 
165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar 
and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 18] 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 151 
 
 
  UNITED STATES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED STATES Food safety 58. Notification on refrigeration a nd labelling requirements for shell eggs 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 37-38) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/133 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
588. The European Communities queried whether the US measure was based on a risk assessment, 
and if this risk assessment was available.  Th e European Communities s ought written clarification 
from the United States regarding the non-application of  the measure to units with 3,000 hens or less, 
and asked the United States to explain the discrim ination between foreign and domestic eggs.  The 
European Communities also enquired whether the Un ited States would accept equivalent measures.  
The United States responded that the risk assessment was available on the internet, but that a copy 
would be provided to the European Communities.  The United States welcomed the EC request for 
consideration of equivalence, and indicated that answers to the mo re technical questions would be 
provided in due course. 
 152. Restrictions on melons 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G /SPS/R/28, paras. 180-181) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/366 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
589. Mexico indicated that on 28 October 2002, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
imposed an emergency import ban on cantaloupe me lons imported from Mexico.  Mexico considered 
this measure as being disproportionate and not b ased on scientific evidence of any health risk 
(G/SPS/GEN/366).  Mexico requested the United States to suspend the import ban on cantaloupe 
melons and to comply with its obligations under the SPS Agreement. 
590. The United States noted that FDA sampling of imported produce found that samples of 
cantaloupe melons from most growing regions in Mexi co tested positive for sal monella.  The samples 
had been collected both in the fall/winter and spri ng/summer seasons, and it appeared that unsanitary G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 152  
 
  conditions in the growing and packing of canta loupe melons had resulte d in four salmonella 
outbreaks.  The import alert recommended officials to detain cantaloupe melons from Mexico at all US ports without physical examination.  The Oct ober import alert expanded pr ior import alerts that 
had targeted specific imports and growers whose produc ts had been linked to outbreaks or had tested 
positive for salmonella.  On 28 October 2002, the United States had announced that they would 
continue to work with Mexico on a food safety pr ogramme for production, packing and shipping of 
fresh cantaloupe melons.  The Mexican Governme nt had proposed a certification programme based 
on good agricultural practices and good manufacturing practices that w ould allow the FDA to identify 
firms that had adopted and implemented such a pr ogramme.  This certification programme was still 
under development and the United States looke d forward to its early implementation. 
 
Animal Health 
7. Regionalization in relation to animal health 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para. 15) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/37 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
591. The European Communities welcomed a US notification on the introduction of 
regionalization in import policy and internal contro l policy in relation to animal health, but was 
concerned that the proposed measure did not meet th e criteria of a true regionalization approach in 
conformity with what had been discussed at the OI E.  The United States stressed the purpose of the 
proposed measure was to facilitate trade and to fulfill the obligation of the United States under the 
SPS Agreement, in particular Article 5.2 on risk assessment. 
 
44. Measures related to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, New Zealand, Switzerland 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/ 10, paras. 10-12), June 1998 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/66, G/SPS/N/USA/106 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
592. In March 1998, the European Communities compla ined that recent US measures were neither 
in conformity with the SPS Agreement nor with the OIE, and were singling out Europe.  The 
European Communities rejected US claims that inadequate surveillance in relation to BSE was a  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 153 
 
 
  problem within the European Communities and indi cated that the European  Communities was about 
to introduce a harmonized surveillance system.  The United States replied that it was receiving 
numerous comments to its interim measure, which was intended to protect animal and consumer 
health from BSE in light of the unclear information on the distribution of BSE on the European continent.  Trade would resume when the countries in  question had systems that met US criteria.  The 
United States would evaluate the data submitted,  and would take the necessary measures based on 
science and risk assessment.  Argentina noted that BSE was a European problem with important potential consequences for the rest of the world, a nd that it required a joint effort of political and 
scientific authorities to find a solution based on th e available knowledge to avoid unnecessary trade 
disruption. 
593. In June 1998, the European Communities drew attention to the recent OIE indication that 
when a country had no native cases of BSE and surve illance systems were in place for seven years, 
trade in meat could take place.  The OIE also prov ided the basis on which trade could take place with 
countries of low incidence of BSE.  The criteria on which US decisions would be based were still not 
clear to the European Communities.  The United States announced that comments and information 
received were being incorporated into the risk assessment, taking into account the discussions in the 
OIE framework.  The updated rule would soon be  published and notified, and responses would be 
provided to all comments received. 
 
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free co untries – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, page 1] 
Raised by: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Repub lic, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia 
Supported by: United States, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  18-25), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 48) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/247, G/SPS/N/ARG/59, G/SPS/N/AUS/125, 
G/SPS/N/CAN/94, G/SPS/N/KOR/83, G/SPS/N/NZL/77, 
G/SPS/N/USA/379 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
594. On behalf of a group of countries (see table a bove), Romania drew attention to a number of 
emergency notifications banning imports of certain  animal products from countries that were BSE-
free.  These measures violated the SPS Agreemen t since they were not based on a proper risk 
assessment.  The affected countries were willing to provide the necessary documentation of their 
BSE-free status.  The European Communities added th at testing or suspension of imports of milk, 
dairy products, collagen and gelatine for BSE was not in conformity with OIE guidelines, and 
requested Members to adapt their requirements to  the international standard.  The United States 
affirmed that BSE-related measures must be based on science and international standards.  The United 
States, although BSE-free, had also been affected by  import restrictions, some of them imposed by 
countries sponsoring the statement presented by Ro mania.  The United States had provided evidence 
on its freedom from BSE, its surveillance system a nd control measures to interested trade partners, 
and required similar data from c ountries that may pose a BSE risk.  The United States looked forward 
to receiving the necessary informa tion to assess the risks involved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 154  
 
  595. New Zealand and Australia were concerned over the increase in known incidence of the 
disease in Europe as a result of intensified testing, and had issued emergency food standards to protect 
public health.  They were developing permanent measures, which would be notified to allow for 
comments from interested Members.  Canada had not recognized any of the countries of the joint 
declaration as BSE-free, and would evaluate individual countries based on a risk assessment as soon 
as the necessary information was received.  Kor ea indicated that a temporary measure had been 
introduced because of the increased  prevalence of BSE in Europe.  Korea would seek the additional 
information necessary for a more objective assessment of  the risks involved.  Argentina indicated that 
its emergency measure was based on the scientific info rmation available at the time, and stressed that 
any new information received would be considered.  Bu lgaria pointed out that according to Article 5.7 
Members were obliged to request additional information when temporary measures were 
implemented.  Brazil reaffirmed Members' right to  go beyond international guidelines based on a risk 
assessment, but stressed that this should only ta ke place once the necessary information had been 
provided. 
596. In July 2001, Bulgaria reitera ted its concern regarding import restrictions affecting BSE-free 
countries. 
 
88. Import restrictions due to FMD – Mainta ined by Canada and United States [See Item 
88, page 32] 
 
120. Restrictions on pigmeat 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para . 11), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras.33-
34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/214/Add.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
597. The European Communities drew the Co mmittee's attention to notification 
G/SPS/N/USA/214/Add.1, which recognized Portugal as free of African swine fever.  The phrasing of 
the US notification gave the erroneous impression  that Portugal was "in a region infected with 
classical swine fever", whereas Portugal was recognized as free of classical swine fever by the OIE.  
Several EC member States remained on the US list of countries infected with classical swine fever 
solely because of delays in the US legislative procedure for reclassification, possibly for political 
reasons.  The European Communities was hopeful that the publication of a final classical swine fever 
rule would follow shortly.  The European Commun ities had signed a bilateral veterinary agreement 
with the United States in 1999 on the unders tanding that a final rule was imminent. 
598. The United States noted that an outbreak of Afri can swine fever was reported in Portugal in 
1999 and that on 7 January 2000, the United States ha d notified measures taken in this regard.  In 
spite of the change in African swine fever status , the export of pork products to the United States 
could not commence due to the presence of other anim al diseases.  The United States stated that they  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 155 
 
 
  had legitimate scientific concerns related to cl assical swine fever in the European Communities 
following recent outbreaks in Germany, Spain and Luxembourg. 
599. In October 2003, the European Communities st ated that it had provided the necessary 
information and renewed its request to the United St ates to adhere to commitments made in the 1998 
bilateral agreement between the United States a nd the European Communities on issues relating to 
animal health. 
600. The United States explained that it had been wo rking closely with the European Communities 
and interested EC member States on this regiona lization request.  The United States had published a 
final rule in April 2003 which recognized that ce rtain areas of the European Communities were 
disease-free.  On 16 October 2003, APHIS ruled th at East Anglia, in the United Kingdom, was 
disease-free and was continuing its eval uation of the status of other EC member States.  Outbreaks of 
both classical swine fever and FMD in France, Sp ain and Luxembourg had complicated and delayed 
the response to the regionalization request. 
 
137. Import restrictions on meat and meat products 
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 10-12) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/321 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
601. Switzerland reported that following the outbreak of  BSE in Switzerland, the United States had 
banned imports of meat and meat products from Sw itzerland (G/SPS/GEN/321).  The ban applied also 
to meat products processed in Switzerland with me at imported from countries free of BSE, such as 
Argentina or Brazil.  Switzerland had a low incide nce of BSE in terms of the OIE International 
Animal Health Code and the US measure did not fo llow the international standards.  Moreover, the 
US double inspection procedure was in violation of the SPS Agreement.  Bila teral consultations had 
clarified some of the questions raised by Switzerla nd, and would hopefully soon lead to a resumption 
of trade in meat and meat products.  The Europ ean Communities requested to be informed of the 
outcome of the discussions between Switzerland and the United States. 
602. The United States noted that there was a further complication pertaining to the FMD status of 
certain countries providing meat to Switzerland fo r processing and subsequent export to the United 
States. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 156  
 
  189. US prohibition on the use of specified risk materials and requirements for disabled 
cattle 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 68-69) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/844 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
603. Argentina stated that notification G/SPS/N /USA/844 was published on 23 January 2004 as a 
standard, non-emergency notification.  The fina l date for comments was on 12 April 2004 but the 
proposed date of adoption and entry into force wa s on 12 January 2004;  hence Members did not have 
adequate opportunity for comment.  Argentina was required to comply with the same requirements 
imposed on countries affected with BSE although Argentina had never had a case of BSE and complied with the requirements to be considered free of BSE.  The United States was requested to 
clarify this matter. 
604. The United States explained that the USDA had instituted a number of  interim measures on 
12 January 2004 after the announcement of a pres umptive case of BSE in Washington State on 
23 December 2003.  Under the US regulatory system, interim final rules were enforced immediately 
but there was a concurrent comment period of 90 days.  The comment period for G/SPS/N/USA/844 would expire on 12 April 2004.  Members that were  free of BSE and interested in seeking recognition 
of alternate control measures equivalent to th e US measures as announced in G/SPS/N/USA/844, 845 
and 846, were encouraged to submit their comment s within the deadline for consideration in the 
development of a final set of BSE rules. 
 
203. US rule on materials derived fr om cattle and record-keeping requirements 
Raised by: Argentina, China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 72-75) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/933 and 934 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
605. Argentina noted that notifications G/SPS/ N/USA/933 and 934 were published as regular 
notifications but were of immediate and compulso ry implementation despite giving a timeframe for 
comments.  Furthermore, Argentina was recognized as free of BSE but had to comply with the same 
requirements imposed on countries affected with BSE.   The United States was requested to recognize 
the different disease status of Members as required in Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  China was 
concerned that the product description in the notifi cation was too general and the HS tariff codes for 
the products covered by the two measures should be included.  The notifications broadly included all  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 157 
 
 
  trading partners exporting human food or cosmetics to the United States without taking into account 
the BSE status of different countries or regions.  It was not necessary to restrict products from countries free of BSE nor should manufac turers be required to keep re levant records.  These measures 
impeded international trade and the United States  should provide scientific justification for its 
deviation from international standards and modify its measures accordingly. 
606. The United States explained that notification G/SPS/N/USA/933 prohibited the use of 
materials derived from cattle in human food, incl uding dietary supplements, and in cosmetics.  
Prohibited cattle materials included specified risk materials such as brain and spinal tissue, small 
intestine of all cattle, material from non-ambulatory disabled cattle, material from cattle not inspected 
and passed for human consumption and mechanically separated beef.  These restrictions were put in 
place to reduce the risk associated with BSE and th e human disease variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.  
The FDA issued an interim final rule effective immediately with a 90-day comment period ending on 
12 October 2004 and would consider  modifications on the final rule based on comments received.  
The requirements on prohibited cattle materials were  imposed without exceptions to any products or 
ingredients of products manufactured in or importe d into the United States.  However, the United 
States recognized that a country's BSE status might merit consideration as the final rule was being 
developed.  To this effect, the United States was seeking comments on the issue of equivalence as it 
related to BSE risk management requirements, as  well as on standards to apply when determining 
another country's BSE status, providing an exemption for BSE free countries.  The FDA and USDA were working to develop a harmonized US positi on on exempting other countries from respective 
requirements related to BSE which might be based, at least in part, on a country's BSE status as 
determined by the OIE. 
607. Notification G/SPS/N/USA/934 was issued at  the same time as G/SPS/N/USA/933 and 
required manufacturers and processors of human food and cosmetics that were manufactured from, processed with or otherwise contained material from cattle to establish and maintain records 
demonstrating that foods and cosmetics were in co mpliance with the interim final rule.  The comment 
period of the proposed record-keeping rule ende d on 13 August and the comments were currently 
being reviewed.  The United States would notify th e Committee of any chang es incorporated in the 
final rule.  The United States would include the HS  codes as requested by China via a corrigendum to 
the two notifications. 
 
Plant Health 
37. Actions taken by local governments 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G /SPS/R/9/Rev. 1, para. 47) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
608. Chile noted that legal actions taken by local  governments could disrupt trade flows.  For 
example, Californian judges had requested the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to undertake 
an environmental analysis before allowing imports. In another instance, after Chilean phytosanitary G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 158  
 
  authorities had taken a decision regarding the entry of weeds, they were threatened to be subject to 
legal proceedings initiated by the exporting c ountry, unless the exporting country was declared a 
"low-risk" or a "zero-risk" country.  Another relate d issue concerned the need for the streamlining or 
reform of national regulatory frameworks.  As many  as five signatures were sometimes required to 
clear the entry of goods into a territory. 
 
59. Interim rule affecting solid wood packaging material 
Raised by: Hong Kong, China 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13,  paras. 3-12), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, 
paras. 2-3), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 35) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/107, G/SPS/N/USA/137, G/SPS/N/CAN/44 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
609. In November 1998, the United States provided information on an amendment of the 
regulations applicable to unmanufactured wood, adding treatment and documentation requirements 
for imports from China, including Hong Kong, China.  Hong Kong, China found the rule arbitrary and 
discriminatory.  Although Hong Kong, China recogn ized that fumigation with methyl bromide was 
effective, it was concerned that the use of this substance had undesirable side-effects on human health 
and the environment.  Bilateral consultations w ith the United States had taken place.  The United 
States encouraged Members to comment on its draft measure.  Canada indicated that it had also 
imposed a measure on unmanufactured wood imports from China to avoid introduction of the Asian 
Longhorned Beetle.  A technical expert would be  sent to Hong Kong, China to study ways to 
implement this measure with a minimal disruption of  international trade.  In March 1999, the United 
States announced that an advance notice of proposed rule making had been published on 
20 January 1999, and that comments were we lcome until 22 March 1999.  The European 
Communities indicated that it had been monitori ng similar problems, and would provide more 
information at a later date.  In October 2001, H ong Kong, China reported that no new developments 
had occurred. 
 
102. Import restrictions on potted plants from the European Communities 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, par as. 30-31), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 58-60), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Re v.1, paras. 70-71), October 2005 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 72-73), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 72-73), March 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, para. 40), Fe bruary 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, para. 62)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/1059   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 159 
 
 
  Solution: Reported as resolved in June 2006, with the issuance of the US final rule on 
plants in growing media.  However, in February 2007, the EC reported that the issue remained unresolved due to continued difficulties faced by one EC 
Member state. 
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
610. In July 2001, the European Communities indicated that exports of plants in growing medium 
had been impeded for over 20 years because the Un ited States conducted a pest risk assessment for 
each type of plant before allowing imports, and each assessment took several years to complete.  In 
addition, the requirements for accepted species were very rigid and not proportional to the potential risk.  The European Communities requested the Unit ed States to adjust its import requirements and 
administrative procedures to allow for market access.   The United States replied that its requirements 
reflected the need to avoid introduction of pest s and diseases that could seriously undermine native 
ecosystems as well as cultivated plants.  The root s of potted plants, even in an approved medium, 
could not be examined for signs of disease, and other mitigation measures were necessary.  The 
United States was preparing a technical proposal for review by the Commission and EC member States, and had proposed the formation of a joint technical working group to address the issue.  USDA 
was willing to review any systems certification pr oposal submitted by the Commission or its member 
States, with the understanding that any modifications  to existing US regulations would have to be 
scientifically justified and be subject to the US rulemaking process. 
611. In March 2005, the European Communities reitera ted concerns that for more than 20 years 
this sector had attempted to obtain better conditi ons for access to the US market.  The most recent 
visit in May 2003 had resulted in a US assessme nt that EC member States had very high SPS 
standards and were expected to meet US requireme nts.  However, the difficulties were continuing.  
For instance, a Danish request for approval to ex port Schlumbergera to the United States had been 
submitted ten years ago and the corresponding US pest  risk assessment had become available only in 
June 2004.  The European Communities urged the Unite d States to review its internal administrative 
procedures in the phytosanitary field to ensure these did not create unjustified trade restriction. 
612. China shared the concerns of the European Communities.  In 1980, China had started to 
export potted plants in growing media to the United States, and experienced problems similar to those 
of the European Communities.  Although in 1996 China had signed a work plan for exporting plants 
in growing media to the United States, to date, China could not export to the United States. 
613. The United States recognized the importance of this issue to the European Communities and 
had taken a number of steps to ensure that the co ncerns were handled as expeditiously as possible.  
The United States was examining how and whether its  import regulations for nursery stock, including 
plants in growing media, might be changed.  An  advanced notice of proposed rulemaking had been 
published in December 2004, and all Members c ould provide comments on that proposal.  The 
proposal sought to streamline the specific proces s questioned by both the European Communities and 
China.  The United States hoped to publish a pr oposed rule for Schlumbergera from the European 
Communities in the near future. 
614. In June 2005, the European Communities reca lled that on 27 April 2005, the US authorities 
had notified as G/SPS/N/USA/1059 a draft rule proposing the inclusion of two species from the 
Netherlands and Denmark in the c onditional positive list of plants established in approved growing 
media that might be imported into the United St ates.  The European Communities welcomed the 
progress made on this issue and requested that new applications for similar species from similar G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 160  
 
  production systems or country pest status be treated as an extension of this proposed rule.  This 
request was legitimate, proportionate to the risk and trade facilitating by nature.  The European 
Communities invited the United States to pu blish the final rule as soon as possible. 
615. The United States indicated that the comment period for its draft rule had closed on 
27 June 2005.  The United States requested a written c opy of the EC statement to further consider its 
request.  However, considering any additions or revisions to a proposed rule that had been both 
notified and published might  slow down final action. 
616. In February 2006, the European Communities reca lled that this issue had been pursued in 
bilateral discussions for the past 25 years.  Specifi cally at issue was the request from Denmark and the 
Netherlands for approval of particular plant species ( Schlumbergera  spp and Rhipsalidosis  spp, 
respectively).  In April 2005, the United States has notified a draft rule on the "Importation of 
Christmas Cactus and Easter Cactus in Growing Media from the Netherlands and Denmark" (G/SPS/N/USA/1059) with a comment period ending in  June 2005.  The United States was invited to 
publish the final rule as soon as possible and to cons ider new applications for species with similar 
production systems or country pest status as an extension of the existing proposed rule. 
617. The United States noted that since June 2005, the United States had conducted a thorough 
review of all comments received and had begun draf ting a final regulation.  No revisions to the 
proposed rule were currently being considered in or der to avoid any delays in the publication of the 
final rule, however it was not possible to give a specific time frame for such a publication.  In 
addition, the United States was also considering chan ges to its entire regulatory framework for import 
measures affecting plants in growing media, as notified in G/SPS/N/USA/1043 in March 2005.  
Comments on this notification were currently being reviewed.  The United States would ensure that 
any modification to the existing regulations would meet both the plant health protection requirements 
and the requirements of the SPS Agreement. 
618. At the June 2006 meeting of the SPS Committee,  the European Communities indicated that 
the issuance of the US final rule on plants in growing media, including Schlumbergera , would resolve 
this issue. 
619. In February 2007, the European Communities recalled that they had previously reported that 
their concerns regarding US measures on plants an d growing media had been resolved as the United 
States had indicated that it would publish a final ru le which addressed these concerns.  Unfortunately, 
one EC member State continued to face difficulties in exporting to the United States.  The European Communities therefore considered that, for the time being, this issue was as yet unresolved. 
 
121. Imports of clementines  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  7-10), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 58-
59) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 161 
 
 
  620. The European Communities reported that on 30 November 2001, USDA APHIS announced 
an immediate temporary ban on citrus fruit imports  from Spain following two reported interceptions 
of live Mediterranean fruit fly larvae.  The finds were made in cold-treated clementines from Spain 
stored in close proximity to, and possibly even mixed with, fruits from other sources.  Imports of 
Spanish citrus into the United States had taken pl ace in accordance with a pr otocol agreed in 1987 
comprising pre-shipment inspection, cold treatment , checks at the point of entry and measures that 
should be taken in the event of pest findings.  The European Communities considered the US measure 
disproportionate to the extent and nature of the fi ndings given the impact on trade, and discriminatory 
since other foreign suppliers, also using cold tr eatment, could still export clementines to the United 
States.  The European Communities was also dismayed  by the US decision to study revisions to the 
cold treatment procedure and issue a final rule  accordingly – a procedure which would take a 
considerable period of time. 
621. In June 2002, the European Communities reported that Spain and the United States continued 
bilateral efforts to find a resolution to this probl em.  The European Communities expressed concern as 
to whether exports would be allowed to resume by the following season on the basis of a new import 
protocol, given that the slow procedures being fo llowed by the United States might not be concluded 
in time for the new season.  The European Communities indicated that if this were to occur they might 
invoke the dispute resolution procedures.  The United States expressed appreciation for the 
cooperation of the Spanish authorities in the matte r and noted that the comment period had been 
extended in order to permit all relevant parties the opportunity to comment on the US risk assessment. 
 216. Restrictions on Ya pears imports 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 37-39) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
622. In March 2005, China reported that, at the end of 2003, the US Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) had suspended imports of  Ya pears from China on the grounds that new 
species of the fungus Alternaria  sp. had been found.  The Ch inese Government had undertaken 
cooperative studies with the United States and finall y obtained a result satisfactory to both Chinese 
and US specialists.  However, US authorities ha d not yet made any decision based on the above 
results and imports of pears from China were still suspended. 
623. The European Communities noted that it was also experiencing lengthy decision-making 
procedures when trying to export some plant products  to the United States, and invited the United 
States to review its internal administrative procedures. 
624. The United States clarified that imports of  Ya pears from China were suspended in 
December 2003 due to repeated detections of the exotic fungus Alternaria  sp. and that imports of 
these pears had already been suspended in previous years for a similar problem.  In May 2004, China 
had been provided with a document describing the st atus of this organism as a pest of quarantine 
significance and the United States had been working closely with China to develop conditions that G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 162  
 
  would allow the reopening of the market.  After several bilateral discussions, agreement had been 
reached in November 2004 on a work plan stipula ting that Chinese scientists would cooperate with 
US scientists to develop possible measures to mitig ate the fungus.  A protocol had been agreed in 
December 2004 to enable a test shipment of Ya pears to be imported for research purposes into the 
United States to evaluate the various mitigation measures..  Unfortunately, the collaborative research 
showed that even with all the mitigation measure s in place, the infestation rate still significantly 
exceeded the one specified in the work plan of November 2004.  Alternaria  sp. was a newly identified 
species not known to exist in the United States, and a better understanding of  this organism was 
necessary to develop appropriate mitigation measures.   The United States would continue work with 
China to identify measures to reduce the level of inf estation to an acceptable level so that the market 
might be reopened. 
 
228. Import procedures for fruits and vegetables 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 21-23) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
625. In June 2005, the European Communities observe d that EC exports of fruits and vegetables 
were experiencing lengthy inspection procedures that because of the highly perishable nature of the 
products, resulted in commercial losses.  The US  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) also required that only US -produced pesticides be used duri ng cultivation, some of which 
were not permitted within the European Commun ities.  The European Co mmunities requested the 
United States to accept the use of equivalent pesticid es.  Certain insects used to protect crops in the 
European Communities were not allowed entry into  the United States.  Other concerns included, 
inter alia , cold treatment import requirements and pre-clearance inspection procedures. 
626. Argentina described the case of markets not attrac tive enough for the private sector to register 
a pesticide, so that no specific limit was fixed for the level of residues of this pesticide.  On sanitary 
grounds, the default limit was zero or close to zero,  which equaled prohibiting the products.  The 
maximum limits established by Codex should be used by default in such cases. 
627. The United States replied that its import pro cedures were transparent and WTO-consistent.  
Pesticide residue levels on fruits coming into the United States had to be approved by the US 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Pesticides did not have to be produced in the United States, 
but to be registered on the EPA list of authorized  pesticides.  The United States imported very 
substantial volumes of fresh fruits  and vegetables from about 150 c ountries and the value of imports 
had increased by 97 per cent over the past ten years. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 163 
 
 
  URUGUAY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY URUGUAY Animal Health 154. Risk assessment on BSE 
Raised by: Canada, United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,  paras. 89-92), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
para.78, 81) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/URY/5/Rev.1 
Solution: Resolved with Canada. 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
628. The United States observed that Uruguay ha d notified its adoption of the EC BSE 
geographical base risk approach for classifying c ountries.  The United States recalled its BSE-free 
status and the Harvard risk assessment on BSE, and asked that Uruguay take these into account.  
Canada indicated that it was providing information to Uruguay which would c onfirm Canada's status 
as free of BSE.  The European Co mmunities noted that the EC risk classification on BSE was never 
intended to serve as the international norm.  Memb ers should continue efforts to develop OIE risk 
classifications in relation to BSE at the interna tional level.  The European Communities hoped an 
agreement would be reached in the OIE by June-July 2003. 
629. Uruguay stated that it was highly dependent on animal product exports.  If BSE appeared in 
Uruguay it would not only affect the health and lif e of people and animals, but would have an 
economically devastating effect.  Uruguay had adopt ed the emergency measures due to the growing 
number of countries with BSE over the last year an d the increased risk of introducing the disease into 
the country.  According to OIE data, at the end of 2000 there were 12 countries with local outbreaks, 
while that figure currently stood at 22.  Uruguay had adopted the risk assessment criteria established 
by the European Communities until such time as the OIE produced a list of countries classified in 
relation to BSE, and would review its legislation when the OIE finished its  work in this area. 
630. In April 2003, Canada reported that Argentin a and Uruguay had agreed to undertake their 
own BSE risk assessment instead of relying on the EC  BSE risk assessment as the basis for their BSE-
related measures and classification of countries.  Urug uay stated that it was dependent on meat related 
products for eight per cent of its GDP.  Since 1996,  a number of emergency measures had been taken 
to ensure that BSE did not enter the country.  In 2001, a decree was promulgated which would restrict 
food products on the basis of their BSE categorization.  At the present time, this decree was suspended and bilateral discussions were ongoing.  Information from both Canada and the United 
States was being reviewed and final categorization of both country's BSE status should be concluded 
within a short period of time. 
631. In September 2004, Canada re ported that the issue of Uruguay's BSE measures had been 
resolved with Uruguay. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 164  
 
  CERTAIN MEMBERS 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS Food safety 63. Information on dioxin 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, par as. 17-22), March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 19), 
June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, para. 9) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/123 and Add.1-4 
Solution:  
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
632. In July 1999, the European Communities provided information on the dioxin contamination 
which had occurred in Belgium in January 1999, an d on the steps it had taken to manage the health 
risks.  Many Members had responded by imposing tr ade restrictions.  The European Communities 
stressed that there was no longer any justification for maintaining import bans, regretting that several 
Members had not notified their ba ns.  The European Communities reserved its right to take action 
with regard to unjustified trade barriers. 
633. Malaysia expressed disappointment to be receiving in formation at such a late stage.  It would 
only be in a position to lift its import ban when it was fully satisfied that there was no more danger 
from EC products.  Australia, Canada, Chile, Brazi l, South Africa and the United States appreciated 
the information provided by the European Commun ities throughout the dioxin crisis.  Australia and 
the United States had notified any ac tion taken with respect to diox in.  Canada had banned Belgian 
imports, but was reviewing the products and areas cove red by the ban.  The Philippines indicated that 
its measures had taken into account the EC meas ures regarding dioxin, and were being reassessed. 
634. The WHO noted that it had convened an expert c onsultation in 1998 to evaluate the tolerable 
daily dose of dioxin to which humans could be expo sed without harm.  Codex reported that at the 
July 1999 meeting of the Codex Alimentarius  Commission, countries had requested that an 
intergovernmental group prepare a code of prac tice on animal feed.  The European Communities 
added that it had established a working group w ithin its Standing Committee on Animal Nutrition 
which was examining legislation regarding an imal nutrition to prevent future accidents. 
635. In March 2000, the European Communities provided an update on the dioxin situation.  While 
some Members had adjusted their trade measures as th e situation evolved, othe rs continued to apply 
unnecessarily strict measures.  The European Comm unities looked forward to receiving answers to 
the questions it had raised in G/SPS/GEN/123/Add.3. 
636. In June 2000, the European Communities explaine d that all previously restricted products 
could be circulated and exported without any addi tional certification.  While there was a general 
acceptance by Members that EC and Belgian produc ts no longer represented a health risk, some 
Members had neither lifted their measures nor respon ded to a January 2000 letter requesting that they 
remove them.  The European Communities repeated that it reserved its right to take any necessary 
action with regard to unjustified trade barriers.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 165 
 
 
   
250. Trade restrictions related to national sy stems for determining maximum residue levels 
(MRLs) for pesticides  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Certain Members 
Dates raised: June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 12-14) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
637. In June 2007, Argentina raised the concern th at a number of Members establish maximum 
residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides at levels that  are more restrictive to trade than the levels 
established by the Codex.  These lower MRLs had a particularly negative impact on developing 
countries, since they often concerned some of the older pesticides on the market.  The prices for older 
pesticides were usually lower than for the newest products, in particular for those products no longer 
under patent protection.  Argentina considered th at these Members were not taking into account their 
obligations under the SPS Agreement,  in particular under Article 10.1.  Argentina was also concerned 
regarding the review and maintena nce of Codex MRLs for older pesticides, an issue they addressed 
under the agenda item on monitoring the use of international standards. 
638. Many Members shared Argentina's concern and stressed that MRLs which were not based on 
those established by Codex should not be maintained  without appropriate scientific justification as 
required by the SPS Agreement.  Several suggested that the Committee should analyze the use of and 
deviations from international standards, to ensure  that SPS measures did not present disguised barriers 
to trade for products from developing countries. 
639. Codex noted that the Codex Committee on P esticide Residues had recently adopted new 
procedures to allow more rapid development of MR Ls.  If the necessary data were available, it should 
usually take no more than two years for Codex to establish MRLs for a pesticide in various products. 
 
Animal Health 
103. FMD-related import restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina, European Communities 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 56-64), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
paras. 20-23), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27 , paras. 48-49), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 52-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/269 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 166  
 
  Solution: New Zealand, Indonesia, Ukraine a nd Switzerland lifted restrictions against 
EC member States after they regained FMD-free status.  Problems with other Members persisting.  Resolved with Argentina. 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
640. In July 2001, the European  Communities observed that many Members had imposed 
restrictions on products that had been treated in a ccordance with the international standard to destroy 
the FMD virus, and had kept them in place beyond the recognized waiting period of three months.  
The principles of proportionality, justification of  measures and regionalization in accordance with the 
OIE Code and Article 6 had not been followed.  Although border controls within the European 
Communities had been eliminated, they had b een replaced by other control instruments. 
641. Argentina expressed concern that many products from Argentina were facing scientifically 
unjustified restrictions that violated Articles 2. 1, 3.1 and 5.1 and the OIE Code.  Plant products, 
except straw and forage, should normally not be affected by FMD-related measures. 
642. Australia explained that it was asking for r easonable information to allow a scientific 
judgement in the face of a different clinical pres entation in sheep.  Recently, additional restrictions on 
Denmark and Austria and on race horses from the European Communities had been lifted.  Australia would re-examine the restrictions as requested info rmation was received.  The United States clarified 
that its FMD measures on EC countries affected only the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands 
and France.  The United States had lifted restrictions on EC member States that had not had FMD 
cases in May 2001, and was currently evaluating the situation in France and Ireland.  The OIE 
representative drew the attention of the Committee to G/SPS/GEN/266, which in Annex 1 contained a 
list of countries that had been confirmed as free of FMD without vaccination, including several EC member States.  G/SPS/GEN/240 contained the rele vant Code chapter on FMD, which had been 
thoroughly reviewed betw een 1990 and 1997 and should be ta ken into account by WTO Members. 
643. The European Communities noted its long tradition of good trade with Uruguay and 
Argentina, and hoped the situation would soon be resolved.  In the EC view, Australia's questionnaire 
was out of proportion with the problem to be addressed.  It was not acceptable that non-affected countries received a questionnaire corresponding to an a ffected country wanting to be declared free of 
FMD.  The European Communities appreciated the US reaction regarding unaffected countries, and 
asked the United States to follow the example of Ca nada and New Zealand in handling the crisis.  
Brazil and Bolivia expressed concern that Members were departing from the principles of the SPS Agreement. 
644. In October 2001, the European Communities expressed concern over continued Australian 
restrictions, which affected member States in wh ich there had been no outbreaks of FMD and were 
based on a failure by these countries to reply to an Australian questionnaire.  Canadian and US 
restrictions against Greece also affected a member State where no outbreak had occurred and that had been declared FMD-free in the m eantime.  The European  Communities also brought to the attention 
of the Committee continued US, Japanese and Mexican restrictions against France, the Netherlands and Ireland.  New Zealand, Indonesia, Ukraine and Switzerland had lifted restrictions against member 
States after they had regained FMD-free status. 
645. Australia reported that it was now able to recognize all member States except the United 
Kingdom as FMD-free.  Japan stated that bilateral consultations were continuing with France, Ireland 
and the Netherlands.  The United States reported that  import restrictions con tinued to apply to the  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 167 
 
 
  United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France and Ireland.  The United States reco gnized that the disease 
outbreaks in these countries were limited, no remain ing technical concerns existed, and the United 
States was taking the necessary regulatory actions to publicize the proposals in the Federal Register.  Concerning Greece, the product ban pre-dated the cu rrent FMD outbreak and w as a separate issue.  
Canada recalled that Greece had only recently expr essed an interest in exporting meat products to 
Canada, and the request was being evaluated. 
646. In June 2002, the European Communities re ported that most Members had lifted their 
restrictions related to the FMD outbreak in Europe .  The OIE had just revised its list of countries 
recognized as FMD-free, which included all 15 EC  member States.  However, some Members 
continued to apply restrictions or requirements which served as administrative bans on EC products, 
in particular UK meat and meat products.  Argentin a noted that they also continued to suffer long-
term negative effects from measures kept in place without justification. 
647. Japan reported that the Domestic Animal Inf ectious Disease Control Law had been amended 
on 14 June, permitting resumption of imports of po rk meat and products from France and Ireland.  
The comment period regarding a proposed lifting of the import ban on Dutch products had just 
concluded, and the ban could be lifted as early as mid-July. 
648. In November 2002 the European Communities noted disappointment that some unnecessary 
and unreasonable FMD trade barriers continued to affect EC exports, in violation of the SPS 
Agreement.  Mexico imposed a number of BSE-related measures that had a detrimental effect on exports from Austria, although Austria had regi stered no cases of FMD in the course of the 2001 
outbreaks.  Bilateral meetings on the matter had been unsuccessful.  Mexico indicated that it 
recognized Austria as being FMD-free but were waiting to receive a request from Austria for plant 
inspections.  Argentina supported the comments made  by the European Comm unities with regards to 
FMD-related measures taken by certain Members. 
649. In March 2004, Argentina informed the Secretar iat that the issue had been resolved with 
respect to Argentina's concerns. 
 
124. Notifications related to Avian Influenza 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 63-66) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
650. The United States noted that although internati onal standards existed with regard to avian 
influenza, differences in the understanding and in terpretation of these standards was resulting in 
unjustified trade barriers.  The OIE considered hi ghly pathogenic avian influenza as a List A disease, 
however low pathogenic strains were not considered to have any significant animal health or socio-
economic consequences.  However, some Members had restricted imports of poultry products from 
the United States due to a strain of low pathogenic avian influenza in two poultry flocks in the state of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 168  
 
  Virginia.  The United States requested that the OIE national and regional offices take a pro-active role 
in advising their members on this matter.  Japan obs erved that there was a possibility of variation in 
the strains, with a case of a low pathogenic strain causing an outbreak that later varied to a high 
pathogenic strain.  Japan had provided scientific ev idence in this regard to  the United States, and 
believed that its measure was fully justified. 
651. The OIE confirmed that the OIE Animal Hea lth Code referred to highly pathogenic or 
virulent avian influenza;  most strains of avian in fluenza were of low pathogenicity and did not cause 
economic effects.  However, the OIE Manual of Sta ndards also made reference to low pathogenicity 
viruses in laboratory tests through mutation showing highly pathogenic effects in the field.  The OIE 
was working on a definition to include such viruses.  The Philippines noted that the OIE Manual also 
included some text related to low pathogenic strain s as these strains could also cause clinical disease 
and problems. 
 
190. Regionalization and recognition of animal disease-free status 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, para. 52) , June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 35-36), 
October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 87) , March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 52-54) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
652. In March 2004, the European Communities indicated that they recognized regionalization and 
based their policy on Article 6 of the SPS Agreemen t, while some Members did not give the same 
treatment to regionalization.  The European Communities had provided evidence to the importing 
Member on regions free from the disease and access fo r inspection or any other relevant procedures as 
in accordance with Article 6.  Nevertheless, EC member States continued to experience unjustified 
export restrictions related to assumed disease prese nce in those regions.  For example, Germany, 
Belgium and the Netherlands had experienced impo rt restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza although they regained their disease free st atus in November 2003.  France, Italy and Spain 
experienced unjustified restrictions related to cla ssical swine fever due to the non-application of the 
principle of regionalization.  Furthermore, all EC  member States were officially free of FMD but 
continued to face unjustified import restrictions.  The European Communities urged all Members to 
respect the obligations of the SPS Agreement on regionalization and recognize the disease free status of EC member States and remove unjustified import restrictions. 
653. In June 2004, the European Communities stated  that some WTO Members failed to recognize 
that all EC member States were officially free of FMD according to the OIE criteria.  No new 
outbreaks of FMD had been recorded in the territo ry of the European Communities since 2002.  The 
European Communities considered the epidemic to be under control and the disease completely 
eradicated.  According to the OIE rules, countries co uld recover free status thre e months after the last 
identified case when a stamping out policy and serologi cal surveillance were applied.  There was no 
scientific justification for restrictive measures on EC products due to FMD.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 169 
 
 
  654. The European Communities also highlighted the lack of recognition of regionalization for 
Classical Swine Fever.  The European Communiti es had continued to recognize area disease-free 
status in several WTO Members who themselves fail ed to recognize regionalization in the European 
Communities.  The European Communities regularly  provided information to importing countries 
upon request concerning which EC member States could be considered free of Classical Swine Fever 
and had also facilitated inspections.  However, so me WTO Members continued to impose restrictions 
on imports from Italy and France based on concerns  about Classical Swine Fever.  The European 
Communities urged Members to respect Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, particularly related to Italy 
and France, and offered to provide any relevant information to support the implementation of this 
request. 
655. In October 2004, the European Communities r ecalled that the Europ ean Communities had on 
previous occasions requested Members to adhere to the principles of regionalization and to recognize 
the disease-free status of EC member States.  Several Members had now removed their restrictions on some EC member States.  The European Comm unities would provide all necessary information to 
demonstrate its disease-free status to any WTO Member. 
656. In March 2005, the European Communities again drew attention to the fact that some WTO 
Members continued to apply unjustified restrictions on EC exports of animal products despite the fact 
that the whole EC territory was officially free of FMD.  No new outbreaks of  FMD had been recorded 
in the territory of the European Communities since 2002 and FMD was completely eradicated.  
Austria had last experienced an FMD outbreak in 1981 and some WTO Members still refused to 
recognize it as free from FMD resulting in a complete ban on imports of animal products from this 
country.  The European Communities urged all Me mbers to respect the obligations of the SPS 
Agreement with regard to recognition of disease-free status and to remove all unjustified import restrictions. 
657. The European Communities was in the position to demonstrate to importing WTO Members 
which regions of the European Communities could safely export live pigs, pork meat and pork meat 
products and which regions could not.  Spain was officially free from cla ssical swine fever since 
July 2002, according to international standards.  However some WTO Members continued to apply a 
ban on imports of pork meat products from Spain.  According to Article 2 of the SPS Agreement, 
there was no scientific justification to ban imports of products from a country where a disease did not 
exist.  The European Communities urged all Me mbers to respect the obligations of the SPS 
Agreement with regard to the recognition of dise ase-free status for classical swine fever and to 
remove all related unjustified impor t restrictions on live pigs, pork meat and pork meat products not 
only from Spain but from all other EC member States free of the disease. 
 
235. Import restrictions on EC exports of live bi rds, meat, meat products and other derivates 
due to avian influenza 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 46-48), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 46-48), June 2006 (G/SPS/ R/42, para. 21), October 2006 
(G/SPS/R/43, para. 37) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 170  
 
  Solution:  
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
658. In October 2005, the European Communities stat ed that it had learned, thanks to SPS 
notifications, that four WTO Members had recently  imposed a ban on EC poultry products including 
live birds, poultry meat and meat products, feathers, animal feed from poultry meat, bone and feather meal, and other by-products of poultry, on the gro und of the presence of avian influenza (AI) in the 
EC territory.  Three of these Members had target ed the ban to Greece, although the suspected case of 
AI reported by Greece in October 2005 had proved to  be negative for highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (HPAI).  The current ban imposed on Gr eece was not based on science nor on any existing 
OIE standards.  It was therefore inconsiste nt with Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement. 
659. The European Communities had b een recognized by the OIE as free of AI and had rapidly 
taken effective safeguard measures to protect and maintain this status.  A fourth WTO Member had banned imports of the same poultry products from the entire world.  According to OIE rules and the 
provisions of the SPS Agreement, bans on bird pro ducts should only apply to regions affected by 
HPAI.  The European Communities urged these four  Members to bring their legislation into 
compliance with international rules a nd Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement. 
660. Canada requested Members to cautiously react to low pathogenic AI outbreaks, especially in 
light of the current worldwide sensitivity on AI-rela ted issues, in order to not discourage Members 
from notifying such outbreaks.  Suriname stated hi s country's concern about the EC ban on imports of 
wild birds from Suriname.  Suriname was an AI-fr ee country, as had been proven by investigations by 
UK authorities tracking an infected bird detected in a shipment of wild birds.  Investigations had 
demonstrated that the infected bird did not originate from Suriname.  Other birds in the same consignment, sent to other EC countries, had show n no sign of the disease.  Suriname's exports of 
wild birds were suffering from the EC ban and Suri name questioned when its exports could resume. 
661. In June 2006, the European Communities reitera ted concerns that certain Members imposed 
unjustified measures on EC exports of an excessively broad range of poultry products, including heat-
treated ones.  Only a limited number of EC member States had confirmed cases of avian influenza and many had rapidly regained disease-free status.  The European Communities urged all Members to 
base their measures on scientific principles and appl y the concept of regionalization rather than 
banning imports from all EC member States. 
662. In October 2006, the European Communities informed the Committee that although a 
significant number of WTO Members had lifted their bans on EC products acco rding to international 
standards, some Members still had unjustified r estrictions in place.  The European Communities 
would continue to seek the lifting of these import restrictions. 
 
258. Import restrictions on beef and beef products due to Blue Tongue disease 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2007  (G/SPS/R/46, para. 13) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 171 
 
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
663. In October 2007, the European Communities stated that certain  WTO Members were 
imposing unjustified import restric tions that went beyond the recomme ndations of the international 
standard-setting organizations on the basis of the presence of Blue Tongue disease.  The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code contained clear  recommendations regarding Blue Tongue disease.  
While WTO Members might review the import conditions  for live ruminants or genetic material in 
light of the recent outbreaks in a limited number of EC member States, there was no scientific basis 
for imposing additional import restrictions on beef and beef products.  According to the OIE, these 
products did not pose a risk from a Blue Tongue pe rspective.  The Europ ean Communities was not 
aware of any scientific justification and urge d Members not to impose import restrictions. 
 
Plant Health 
26. Phytosanitary issues in general  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 12) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
664. The United States noted that the mere existe nce of a plant disease or pest in traded 
agricultural goods did not necessarily constitute a ri sk to the importing country if, for scientific 
reasons, the pest or disease could not establish itself in the area into which it was being imported.  
Likewise, if the disease or pest was already prevalen t in the importing country, import controls were 
unlikely to serve any significant health objectiv e.  The United States urged Members to ensure 
compliance with the principle of national treatment as well as other key provisions. 
 
183. Implementation of ISPM 15 
Raised by: Chile, Uruguay 
Supported by: Argentina, Bolivia, China, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 135-137), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
para.151) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/435 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
Page 172  
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
665. Chile stated that Members should take into c onsideration the zone of production of the wood 
and allow sufficient time for countries to adapt thei r treatment methods to meet the ISPM 15 standard 
when adopting the measures.  Compliance with the st andard required the private sector to make large 
scale investments, a certification process to regist er the mark on packaging, establishment of an 
accreditation system, and the setting up of supervisor y and audit systems.  Chile's concerns were 
detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/435. 
666. Uruguay stated that it was the implementation of the standard that was the problem.  
Argentina supported the comments make by Chile and Uruguay.  Mexico stated that problems could arise with implementing this standard and that discu ssions on this issue should continue in the context 
of the SPS Committee.  Paraguay and Colomb ia supported the comments made by others. 
667. Canada commented that the standard was not new as it had been adopted by the IPPC in 
June 2002.  Canada had planned to implement the standard  in June 2003 but  delayed its 
implementation until January 2004 to give Memb ers sufficient time to  adapt wood treatment 
processes.  Canada would provide a transition pe riod and recommended that the issue be discussed 
under Agenda Item 7(a) regarding the use of international standards. 
668. In March 2004, Uruguay indicated it was provi ding national level certification of wood 
packaging which was used as support material fo r exported products.  However, Uruguay needed 
more time to apply the different phases of the cer tification procedure.  Uruguay emphasized the need 
to recognize the valid use of alternative sanitation methods (as described in section 3.3 of ISPM 15), 
particularly in cases in which countries did not have  the necessary infrastruct ure.  Argentina, China 
and Bolivia shared Uruguay's concern about ISPM  15, particularly relating to the explicit 
implementation timelines. 
 
204. Notification by Members of implementation of ISPM 15 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 83-84) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
669. The European Communities stated that a number  of Members had informed the Committee of 
their intentions to put in place wood packing re quirements based on ISPM 15.  These wood packing 
requirements would also cover woode n barrels and casks containing dis tilled spirits or other alcoholic 
beverages.  Although ISPM 15 was not clear on th e coverage of products, it provided guidance on 
products that might be excluded such as manufactur ed wood.  The wooden barrels and casks typically  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.2 
 Page 173 
 
 
  used to contain distilled spirits and wine were subj ect to heat treatment at 100 degrees centigrade for 
40 minutes, exceeding ISPM is guidelines of 56 centigrade for 30 minutes. 
670. It was apparent that the drafters of ISPM 15 did not intend to cover wooden barrels used to 
contain alcoholic beverages such as spirits.  Some  countries had clearly indicated in their domestic 
legislation that ISPM 15 did not apply to wood en barrels containing spirits.  The European 
Communities noted that the IPPC was organizing a gl obal training workshop in 2005 to explain the 
application of ISPM 15 but requested the IPPC to clarify the matter as soon as possible in order to 
allow trade to continue. 
 
__________