WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
7 February 2007 
 (07-0508) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
  
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Addendum  
  
ISSUES NOT CONSIDERED IN 2006 
 
  This part of document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7 c ontains summary information regarding all 
issues which were raised in the SPS Committee between 1995 and 2006, and on which no further 
discussion or activities occurred during 2006.  However, issues raised as of 1995 but for which a resolution was reported prior to 2006, 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.7/Add.2 
Page ii  
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page
 
ARGENTINA ...................................................................................................................... ...................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA ...........................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....1 
38. Argentina - Temporary prohibition of fresh pork and products .............................................1  
84. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea,  New Zealand, United States - Import 
restrictions affecti ng BSE-free countries................................................................................1  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ..............2  
138. Argentina -  Pest risk assessment requirements......................................................................2  
AUSTRALIA...................................................................................................................... ....................3  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA ............................................3  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....3 
50. Australia - Quarantine requirements for chicken meat...........................................................3  
84. (and Argentina, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States) - Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries ..................................................................................................1  
85. Australia - Import restrictions  on prawn and prawn products ................................................4  
139. Australia – Restriction on pigmeat .........................................................................................6  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................7  
74. Australia – Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit......................................................7  
78. Australia – Notification on methyl bromide...........................................................................8  
79. Australia – Import restrictions on durian................................................................................8  
155. Australia – Import requirements for Netherlands Truss Tomatoes ......................................10  
BARBADOS ....................................................................................................................... ..................10  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BARBADOS ...........................................10  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................10  
195. Barbados – Restrictions on citrus .........................................................................................10  
BOLIVIA ........................................................................................................................ ......................11  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA ...............................................11  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..11 
80. Bolivia - Restrictions on poultry meat imports ....................................................................11  
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA................................................................................12  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA ......................................................................................................................12  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..12 
29. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – Meas ures related to avian influenza...........................12   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page iii 
 
 
  70. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela - Import conditions for pork meat and products............12  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................13  
93. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela - Phytosan itary requirements for potatoes, garlic 
and onions..................................................................................................................... ........13  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............14  
123. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – Restri ctions on imports of potatoes, onions, 
fertilised eggs, day-old ch icks and meat products................................................................14  
BRAZIL ......................................................................................................................... .......................16  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL .................................................16  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................16  
5. Brazil - Import requirements for wine..................................................................................16  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..17 
140. Brazil – Imports of live ostriches .........................................................................................17  
218. Brazil - Lack of recognition of regionali zation and disease-free status for classical 
swine fever .................................................................................................................... .......17  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................18  
46. Brazil – Import prohibition of coc onut palms and related products.....................................18  
126. Brazil – Import requirements for seed potatoes....................................................................18  
141. Brazil – Pest risk assessments fo r imports of plant origin....................................................20  
CANADA ......................................................................................................................... .....................20  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA ...............................................20  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................20  
6. Canada - Importation of cheese............................................................................................20  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..21 
15. Canada - Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE .....................................................21  
84. (and Argentina, Australia, Korea, New Zealand, United States) - Import 
restrictions affecti ng BSE-free countries................................................................................1  
88. Canada and the United States - Impor t restrictions due to FMD..........................................21  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................22  
229. Canada - Import restrictions on Enoki mushrooms from Chinese Taipei ............................22  
CHILE.......................................................................................................................... .........................22  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE ...................................................22  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................22  
9. Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Hondur as, Slovak Republic – Zero-tolerance 
for salmonella  in imported poultry products ........................................................................22  
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... ........................24  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA ..................................................24  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page iv  
 
  Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................24
 
114. China – Food safety regulations affecting agricultural products produced from 
modern biotechnology..........................................................................................................2 4 
142. China – Zero tolerance for e-coli..........................................................................................25  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..25 
128. China - Import requirements for cosmetics ..........................................................................25  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................26  
143. China – Regulation on wood packaging material.................................................................26  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............27  
184. China – Lack of transparency for certain SPS measures......................................................27  
COSTA RICA..................................................................................................................... ..................27  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY COSTA RICA..........................................27  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................27  
230. Costa Rica -  Phytosanitary requirements on fresh oranges .................................................27  
CROATIA........................................................................................................................ .....................28  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CROATIA ................................................28  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..28 
166. Croatia – Import measures on live animals and meat products ............................................28  
158. Croatia – Restrictions on pork imports.................................................................................29  
CUBA ........................................................................................................................... .........................29  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA....................................................29  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................29  
105. Cuba - Restrictions on apples and pears...............................................................................29  
EGYPT.......................................................................................................................... ........................30  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EGYPT ..................................................30  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................30  
77. Egypt - Restrictions on canned tuna.....................................................................................30  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................3 0 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .................30  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................30  
11. European Communities (Spain ) – Restriction on levels of copper and cadmium in 
imported squid................................................................................................................. .....30  
39. European Communities - Maximum levels fo r certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs..................................................................................................................... .........31  
47. European Communities - Measure on establis hments operating in the animal feed 
sector ......................................................................................................................... ...........34  
52. European Communities - Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation .......................34   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page v 
 
 
  72. European Communities (Belgium) - Measur es regarding canned tuna in oil.......................35  
89. European Communities - Import r estrictions on soy sauce..................................................35  
94. European Communities - Directive 2000/42 on pesticide residues......................................37  
95. European Communities - Legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ)......................37  
106. European Communities - Regulations on genetically modified food and feed ....................38  
117. European Communities – Traceability and la belling of genetically modified 
organisms and food and feed................................................................................................40  
130. European Communities – Restrictions on shellfish..............................................................42  
131. European Communities – Pesticide and antib iotic limits in honey (Directive 96/23)..........43  
144. European Communities – Restrictions on the importation of fruits and fruit juices ............43  
168. European Communities – Maximum levels for aflatoxins in corn and sampling 
contaminants in food ........................................................................................................... .44 
169. European Communities – EC proposed regul ation on maximum residue levels of 
pesticides ..................................................................................................................... .........45  
175. European Communities – Notification on food and feed controls .......................................46  
176. European Communities (Germany) – Notif ication on maximum tolerance levels 
for ocratoxin A in coffee ...................................................................................................... 47 
191. European Communities – Maximum residue  levels for pesticides on food .........................48  
197. European Communities – EC regulation on Ocratoxin A in coffee .....................................49  
198. European Communities – EC regulation on af latoxins and Ocratoxin A in foods for 
infants and young children ...................................................................................................50  
206. European Communities (Greece) - Inspecti on and testing procedures for imported 
wheat .......................................................................................................................... ..........51  
207. European Communities - Directives on resi dual pesticide tolerance and inspection 
methods for tea ................................................................................................................ .....52  
208. European Communities -  Food and feed hygiene rules.......................................................52  
220. European Communities (United Kingdom) - Proposed regulations for piper 
methysticum (kava-kava) .....................................................................................................53  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..54 
17. European Communities – Cosmetics and  BSE....................................................................54  
18. European Communities (France) – Certif ication requirements for pet food........................54  
31. European Communities – Rules on "specified risk materials" in products of animal 
origin ......................................................................................................................... ...........55  
32. European Communities – Gelatin imports ...........................................................................56  
96. European Communities – Geographical BSE risk assessment.............................................57  
97. European Communities – Restricti ons on the use of fishmeal .............................................58  
107. European Communities – Transitional TSE measures .........................................................60  
159. European Communities –  Proposal on animal by-products ................................................61  
160. European Communities  - Tr ansitional BSE measures.........................................................63  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page vi  
 
  161.
 European Communities – EC Directive 2001/661/EC on foot and mouth disease ..............64  
33. European Communities – Salmonella-related  restriction on fishmeal imports ....................64  
64. European Communities - Ban on antibiotics in feed............................................................65  
170. European Communities – Live animals and animal products ..............................................65  
171. European Communities – Animal health conditions and certification requirements 
for live fish .................................................................................................................. .........66  
177. European Communities – Sanitary conditions  for the importation of live material 
for apiculture ................................................................................................................. .......66  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................68  
19. European Communities – Protected zones ...........................................................................68  
81. European Communities - Wood packing material ...............................................................68  
98. European Communities – Restric tions on Egyptian potatoes...............................................69  
108. European Communities - Cut flowers ..................................................................................69  
109. European Communities (Spain - Canary Islands) - Phytosanitary regulations ....................70  
199. European Communities (Spain - Canary Islands) – Deviation from international 
standard for wood packing material .....................................................................................71  
209. European Communities -  Plant health directive ..................................................................73  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............73  
110. European Communities - Agricultural biotechnology approval process..............................73  
GUATEMALA ...................................................................................................................... ...............75  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY GUATEMALA .......................................75  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................75  
211. Guatemala - Restrictions on the transit of avocados ............................................................75  
HONDURAS....................................................................................................................... ..................76  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS ...........................................76  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..76 
145. Honduras – Import restrictions on chicken meat imports.....................................................76  
INDIA.......................................................................................................................... ..........................77  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA ....................................................77  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................77  
200. India – Ban on food grade wax.............................................................................................77  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..78 
61. India – Import restrictions on bovine semen ........................................................................78  
185. India - Restrictions due to avian influenza ...........................................................................79  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................80  
186. India – Phytosanitary import restrictions..............................................................................80  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............82   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page vii 
 
 
  192. India – Non-notification of various SPS measures...............................................................82  
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ...................83  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA ...........................................83  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................83  
146. Indonesia – Ban on hormones in animal production ............................................................83  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..84 
111. Indonesia - FMD restrictions................................................................................................84  
132. Indonesia – Import restrictions on dairy products ................................................................85  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................86  
21. Indonesia - Fresh fruit and vegetables..................................................................................86  
ISRAEL......................................................................................................................... ........................87  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL .................................................87  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..87 
55. Israel - TSE-related import r estrictions of live cattle ...........................................................87  
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ........................87  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN ...................................................87  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................87  
147. Japan - Regulation on food additives ...................................................................................87  
148. Japan - Amendment of the food sanitation law ....................................................................88  
178. Japan – Revision of standards and speci fications for foods and additives ...........................89  
201. Japan – Standards and specifications for food additives (boscalid) .....................................89  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..90 
34. Japan - Measures regarding FMD ........................................................................................90  
99. Japan - Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top from Indonesia ................................90  
221. Japan – Safety insurance and quality impr ovement standards for feed and feed 
additives...................................................................................................................... ..........91  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................92  
23. Japan - Plant quarantine regulations.....................................................................................92  
56. Japan – Notification on amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law .........................92  
133. Japan – Official control restrictions on citr us and other fresh fruits and vegetables............93  
162. Japan – Fumigation standards ..............................................................................................96  
223. Japan - Import requirements for Indian mangoes.................................................................96  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............97  
13. Japan and Korea - Translation of regulations.......................................................................97  
173. Japan - Notification on uses of living modified organisms ..................................................97  
224. Japan - Restrictions on EC exports  of plant and animal products ........................................98  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page viii  
 
  REPUBLIC OF KOREA.............................................................................................................. .......99
 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA ..................99  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................99  
179. Korea – Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing ...........................................99  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 101 
65. Korea – Import restrictions on beef....................................................................................101  
84. (and Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States) - Import 
restrictions affecti ng BSE-free countries................................................................................1  
174. Korea – Notification on transboundary move ment of living modified organisms .............101  
NEW ZEALAND .................................................................................................................... ...............1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND ......................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....1 
84. (and Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, United States) - Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries ..................................................................................................1  
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ....................102  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO .............................................102  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 102 
67. Mexico - Import restrictions on beef ..................................................................................102  
163. Mexico – Restrictions on Austrian products ......................................................................102 
PANAMA......................................................................................................................... ...................103  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA .............................................103  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............103  
83. Panama - Restrictions on milk powder imports..................................................................103  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 103 
187. Panama – FMD restrictions................................................................................................103  
149. Panama - Restrictions on food products.............................................................................105  
214. Panama - Inspection regime for food processing establishments.......................................105  
226. Panama - Inspection regime for agricultural products........................................................105  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ..........106  
118. Panama - Import licenses for agricultural products............................................................106  
POLAND......................................................................................................................... ....................107  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND ..............................................107  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............107  
25. Poland – Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds......................................................................107  
ROMANIA ........................................................................................................................ .................107  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA ...........................................107   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page ix 
 
 
  Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............107  
134. Romania – SPS measures on animal products....................................................................107  
SOUTH AFRICA................................................................................................................... ............108  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA .................................108  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 108 
43. South Africa - Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from EC member States....................108  
135. South Africa – Restrictions on beef and pork.....................................................................109  
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND 
MATSU (CHINESE TAIPEI)......................................................................................................... ..109  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI ................................109  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 109 
227. Chinese Taipei - BSE-related import restrictions on non-ruminant products ....................109  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............110  
136. Chinese Taipei - Policies regarding qua rantine and non-quarantine pests .........................110  
THAILAND....................................................................................................................... .................110  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THAILAND ..........................................110  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............110  
215. Thailand - Regulation 11....................................................................................................110  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 112 
234. Thailand - Suspension of importation of  live poultry and poultry carcasses......................112  
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ............................................................................................................ .113 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ...................113  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 113 
151. Trinidad and Tobago - Restrictions on imports of pork sausages and other pork 
products ....................................................................................................................... .......113  
TURKEY ......................................................................................................................... ...................114  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY .............................................114  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 114 
48. Turkey – Import ban on livestock.......................................................................................114  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. ............115  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES .........................115  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............115  
58. United States - Notification on refrigera tion and labelling requirements for shell 
eggs........................................................................................................................... ..........115  
152. United States – Restrictions on melons ..............................................................................116  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 116 
44. United States – Measures related to BSE ...........................................................................116  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page x  
 
  84.
 (and Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand) - Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries ..................................................................................................1  
137. United States – Import restrictions on meat and meat products .........................................117  
189. United States – US prohibition on the u se of specified risk materials and 
requirements for disabled cattle..........................................................................................117  
203. United States – US rule on materials de rived from cattle and record-keeping 
requirements ................................................................................................................... ....118  
7. United States - Regionalization in relation to animal health ..............................................119  
120. United States – Restrictions on pigmeat.............................................................................119  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............120  
37. United States - Actions taken by local governments..........................................................120  
59. United States – Interim rule affec ting solid wood packaging material...............................120  
121. United States – Imports of clementines..............................................................................121  
153. United States – Restrictions on imports of Chinese potted plants in growing 
medium......................................................................................................................... ......121  
182. United States – Implementation of the in ternational standard for phytosanitary 
measures on wood packaging (ISPM 15)...........................................................................123  
216. United States - Restrictions on Ya pears imports ...............................................................123  
228. United States - Import procedures for fruits and vegetables ..............................................124  
URUGUAY ........................................................................................................................ .................125  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY URUGUAY ...........................................125  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 125 
154. Uruguay – Risk assessment on  BSE..................................................................................125  
OTHER CONCERNS................................................................................................................. .......126  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............126  
63. Certain Members - Information on dioxin..........................................................................126  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 127 
103. Certain Members – FMD-related import restrictions .........................................................127  
193. Certain Members – General import restrictions due to BSE ..............................................128  
124. Certain Members – Notifications related to Avian Influenza.............................................129  
190. Certain Members - Regionalization and recognition of animal disease free status............130  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............131  
26. Phytosanitary issues in general...........................................................................................131  
183. Implementation of ISPM 15 ...............................................................................................132  
204. Certain Members - Notification by Members of implementation of ISPM 15...................132   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 1 
 
 
  ARGENTINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other animal health concerns 
 
38. Argentina - Temporary prohibitio n 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: Not reported 
 
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. 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
84. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Ze aland, United States - Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries 
Raised by: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Repub lic, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia 
Supported by: European Communities, United States 
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: Not reported 
 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 
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, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 2  
 
  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.   
Other Concerns 
138. Argentina -  Pest risk assessment requirements 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, European  Communities, New Zealand 
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: Not reported 
 
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 
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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 3 
 
 
  partners.  Argentina noted that other countries, including the European Communities, approved plants 
for export to their markets only after visiting those pl ants, and then the conditio ns were maintained by 
Argentina. 
AUSTRALIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other animal health concerns 
 50. Australia - 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 20 03 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 60-62), June 
2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 54-56) 
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: Not reported 
 8. 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. 
9. In October 2001, Thailand reported that the Department of Livestock Development was 
finalising 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. 
10. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 4  
 
  11. 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. 
12. 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. 
13. In June 2003, Thailand reported  that no progress 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. 
85. Australia - Import restrictions on prawn and prawn products 
Raised by: Thailand on behalf of ASEAN 
Supported by: Philippines on behalf of ASEAN, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  84-85), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
109-111), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ra-137), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, 
paras. 138-139), November 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) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/124, G/SPS/N/AUS/126 
Solution: Not reported 
 
14. 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, and which was based on the fact that the imported prawn might 
illegally be used as fishing bait.  ASEAN objected to the inclusion of ille gal domestic practices as a 
major element in risk analysis.  Thailand urged Aust ralia 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. 
15. 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.7/Add.2 
 Page 5 
 
 
  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. 
16. 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. 
17. In June 2002, Thailand requested information on the period of application of the interim 
measure related to white spot syndrome and its scientific 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. 
18. 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, including area disease freedom, which might enhance 
prospects for trade in the prawn products of concern. 
19. 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 5% of 
the prawn products exported to Australia from Thaila nd.  Tests had indicated the positive presence of 
white spot virus in Thai uncooked prawn products shipped to Australia.  The disease was exotic to 
Australia.  Biosecurity Australia had commissione d 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 fo r alternative biosecurity measures for prawns, 
including aquatic disease zoning methodologies. 
20. 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.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 6  
 
  139. Australia – Restriction on pigmeat   
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Canada, United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 75-76), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 67-69), June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 56-58) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
21. In November 2002, the European Communities noted that Australia banned imports of 
pigmeat from the European Communities, except Danish  pigmeat subject to a specific heat treatment.  
Australia had began a risk assessment for pigmeat imports in May 1998, and although the results had 
been scheduled for February 2000 they had not been  presented and no alternative date had been set.  
Four and a half years was too long a delay to wa it for a risk assessment to be undertaken.  The 
European Communities had formally proposed equi valent measures, but Australia had not accepted 
these.  The European Communities requested Australia to take a decision as quickly as possible. 
22. 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. 
23. 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. 
24. 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.  
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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 7 
 
 
  scientific information on its transmission via meat , Australia was seeking the information needed for 
an informed quarantine policy decision.   
25. 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 licences, valid only for tw o years, would not be renewed in July 2006.   
26. 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.   
27. 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. Australia – Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit 
Raised by: Philippines on behalf of ASEAN 
Supported by: Brazil, European Communities, India, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, United 
States 
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 
Solution: Not reported 
 
28. 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 
assessment and risk management to  avoid the introduction of diseases.  Both countries indicated that 
they were conducting bilateral consultations on the matter. 
29. 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. 
30. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 8  
 
  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. Australia – 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: Not reported 
 
31. 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.   
79. Australia – Import restrictions on durian 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by: European Communities, India, Malaysia, Philippines on behalf of ASEAN 
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 20 03 (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: Not reported 
 
32. 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, di d not appear to be justified.   
33. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 9 
 
 
  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.  
34. 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 be gin in Thailand and import permits be issued.   
35. 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.  
36. 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 
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. 
37. 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 considering th e pest free alternatives and had agreed to a joint 
collaborative trial of the reproscan inspection met hods for the fruiting season in late April and June.  
A longer term solution might be i rradiation and Australia understood th at Thailand could be interested 
in conducting trails as no efficacy da ta was currently available.   
38. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 10  
 
  155. Australia – Import requirements  for Netherlands Truss Tomatoes 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Philippines, Indonesia, 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: Not reported 
 
39. 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. 
40. 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.   
41. 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. 
BARBADOS 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BARBADOS  
Plant Health 
195. Barbados – Restrictions on citrus 
Raised by: The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004  (G/SPS/R/35, para. 218) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 11 
 
 
  42. 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. 
43. 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 agree 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. 
BOLIVIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other animal health concerns 80. Bolivia - Restrictions on poultry meat imports 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/29, pa ra. 94), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 
33-35), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 132) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Agreement on a protocol a nd progress reported in July 2001. 
 
44. In November 2000, Chile reported that in Augus t 2000 it had consulted with the authorities of 
Bolivia, in the context of Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, regarding requ irements on poultry meat 
imports with respect to Inclusion body hepatitis.  This disease was endemic to Bolivia and restrictions 
on imports from Chile were not justified.  Chile hope d that this issue would soon be resolved.  The 
representative of Bolivia indicated that he woul d transmit this information to his authorities. 
45. In March 2001, Chile noted that Bolivia had fa iled to notify the measure, and requested that a 
scientific risk assessment be carried out as quickly as possible.  Bilateral discussions on the issue had 
ceased since August 2000.  Bolivia explained that import conditions for poultry and other agricultural 
products had been changed because of problems whic h Inclusion body hepatitis caused in the bird 
population and the associated negative economic impact.  During the last five years, Bolivia's state 
veterinary laboratories had determined the clinical  absence of Inclusion body hepatitis in Bolivia, but 
the disease had been diagnosed in Ch ile.  Regarding preventive vaccina tion, Bolivia stated that this 
was justifiable only if the virus was present on a fa rm.  Secondly, total protection against the disease 
was only possible if the serotype present in the vaccination was the same as that present in farm 
strains.  Thirdly, successful protection depended on other immuno-suppressant factors, and in Chile 
there was a risk of Avian infectious anaemia.  Bolivia's National Food and Agricultural Health 
Service was revising the standard, and would inform Ch ile of the results.  Bolivia wished to solve the 
matter expediently and to the benefit of both parties. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 12  
 
  46. In July 2001, Chile informed the Committee th at the sanitary authorities of both countries had 
agreed to work on a protocol, and thanked Bolivia for the progress made. 
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to avian influenza 29.  Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – 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: Not reported 
 
47. 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. 
48. 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. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela - 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 
Solution: Not reported 
 
49. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Plant Health 
93. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela - Phytos anitary requirements for potatoes, garlic and 
onions  
Raised by: Argentina  
Supported by: United States, Canada 
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, par as.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: Not reported 
 
50. 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. 
51. 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 
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. 
52. 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. 
53. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 14  
 
  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. 
54. 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. 
55. 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. 
56. 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. 
57. 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. 
Other Concerns 
123. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – Restrictions on imports of potatoes, onions, 
fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and meat products 
Raised by: Colombia, Canada 
Supported by: Chile, United States 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  27-29), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 30-
32), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1,  paras. 55-57, June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 59-61) , October 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 76-78) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
58.  In March 2002, Colombia observed that th e 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 15 
 
 
  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.   
59. 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 prohib ition 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.  
60. 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 licences. 
61. 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. 
62. 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. 
63. 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 licences compared to others and which arbitrar ily 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. 
64. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 16  
 
  65. 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. 
66. 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 licences, 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 this  permit and supply the supporting risk assessment.  
67. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela took note of Canada's concerns and noted that bilateral 
negotiations were continuing. 
68. 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. 
69. 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. 
70. 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  bila teral meetings to find a mutually satisfactory 
solution to Canada’s concerns. 
BRAZIL 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL  
Food Safety 
5. Brazil - 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: Not reported 
 
71. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 17 
 
 
  72. 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 
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 and Zoonoses Other animal health concerns 
 140. Brazil – 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: Not reported 
 
73. 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. Brazil - Lack of recognition of regionalizat ion and disease-free status for classical 
swine fever 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: None 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 42-44) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
74. 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 
epidemiologically under control, with strict veteri nary and police surveillance and systems for animal 
identification and traceability.   
75. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 18  
 
  of the proposed CSF-free area and considering th e epidemiological characteristics of the disease 
agent.  These control measures were scientifica lly supported by Article 2.6.7.3 of the 2004 OIE 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  Moreover, th e disease agent could be found in the wild boar 
population, which made more difficult the establishm ent of control measures for a proposed disease-
free area.  The probability of the CSF agent spreading to domestic pigs had to be considered.  During 
bilateral meetings in April 2005, Brazil had proposed  the establishment of a bilateral expert working 
group to define risk analysis criteria related to equivalent regionalization procedures.  The Brazilian 
sanitary authorities were currently working with the bila teral expert group in order to define criteria.  
Brazil had a regular and continuous CSF-free zone wh ich covered almost all commercial swine herds.  
Plant Health 
46.  Brazil – Import prohibition of coconut palms and related products 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by: Malaysia, Sri Lanka 
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: Not reported 
 
76. 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. 
77. 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. 
126. Brazil – Import requirements for seed potatoes 
Raised by: European Communities, Canada 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27 , pa ras. 24-26), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 63-68), October 2003 (G/SPS/ R/31, paras. 21-22), June 2004 
(G/SPS/R/34, paras. 55-56) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Resolved with Canada 
 
78. The European Communities reported that on 13  November 2001, the Brazilian authorities had 
given notice of new measures on imports of seed potatoes that Brazil had notified new measures on imports of seed potatoes, but had provided no delay for their implementation, no technical 
justification and had not respected the need for transp arency.  As one of the main suppliers to Brazil, 
the European Communities had commented on the measures, but Brazil's initial response had not  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 19 
 
 
  addressed the EC's concerns and, in particular, had not  identified the pest risk assessment justifying its 
measure.  The requested information had been provi ded during bilateral consu ltations held before the 
SPS Committee meeting, and the European Communiti es looked forward to continuing the bilateral 
process with Brazil.  Canada expressed concern with Brazil's required export certification for non 
quarantine regulated pests, in contradiction to inte rnationally agreed principles and practices.  Canada 
was also involved in bilateral discussion with th e Brazilian authorities and had requested Brazil to 
withdraw its measure.  Brazil indicated that it hope d subsequent technical c onsultations would resolve 
the issue. 
79. In November 2002, Canada expressed concerns regarding Brazil's required certification for 
pests that were not of economic significance nor a si gnificant risk to plant health.  Canada considered 
this to be an issue of quality that was more appr opriately resolved between the buyer and the seller, 
and not by government certification schemes.  Although Canadian technical officials were working 
with Brazil to complete a risk assessment, this i ssue was not being resolved as quickly as warranted.  
The European Communities requested Brazil to modi fy its measures on the basis of the technical 
arguments and proposals that had been made b ilaterally and requested Brazil to postpone the 
implementation of these measures.  The United Stat es shared the concerns expressed by both Canada 
and the European Communities concerning the disr uption of trade in seed potatoes and requested 
Brazil to revise their policy as soon as possible. 
80. Brazil noted that consultations on the issue of  seed potatoes had been carried out for some 
time.  Brazilian experts were considering a new proposal from the European Communities and hoped 
to provide a reply as soon as possible.  The Br azilian Directive aimed at enhancing market 
opportunities in relation to previous regulations by  creating two new categories of imports for seed 
potatoes.  Brazil was interested in diversifying th eir source of suppliers of seed potatoes given the 
strategic importance of the sector for Brazil.  National producers were subject to the same 
considerations applicable to foreign providers, a nd his country's motivation c ould not be construed as 
restricting market access for seed potatoes.  Braz il invited the European Communities to send a team 
of experts to become familiar with their system, and witness the fact that national producers were 
subject to the same considerations as the foreign suppliers.  With respect to the comments made by 
Canada, Brazil recalled that the matter had b een extensively discussed by authorities from both 
countries.  The Brazilian legislation required that exporters of seed potatoes to Brazil had to have a 
certification system in place; apparently this w as not the case for Canada.  Brazil added that the 
concerns voiced by the United States would be  transmitted to the competent authorities.  
81. Canada clarified that Canada had a certification system for seed potatoes but that the 
certification system did not go into minor details on issues of quality.  In response to Brazil's invitation, the European Communities suggested that  Brazil should send a team of experts to inspect 
the production and food safety conditions within the European Communities. 
82. In October 2003, the European Communities re ported that following discussions with Brazil 
in October 2002, the European Communities had pr esented a proposal for a possible solution  which 
Brazil had agreed to study.  Brazil explained that it was in the process of discussing new regulations and hoped that the issue would be resolved shortly. 
83. In June 2004, Canada reported that the issue of  Brazil's import requirements for seed potatoes 
had been resolved, and Brazil had made a number of adjustments to its regulation of non-quarantine pests.  Canada reminded Members of the importance of notifying their SPS measures sufficiently in 
advance to provide an opportunity to comment befo re regulations were finalized to avoid future 
problems of this nature.  Brazil concurred that the issue had been resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 20  
 
  141. Brazil – Pest risk assessments for imports of plant origin 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Australia, European Commun ities, New Zealand, Peru, United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28 , paras. 77-79) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/65 
Solution: Not reported 
 
84. 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.  
85. The United States did not believe that it was neces sary 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.  
86. 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. Canada - 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: Not reported 
 
87. 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 
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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 21 
 
 
  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 and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
15.  Canada - 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: Not reported 
 
88. The European Communities argued that the Ca nadian 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. 
Concerns related to FMD 88.  Canada and the United States - Import restrictions due to FMD 
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: Not reported 
 
89. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 22  
 
  Plant Health 
 229. Canada - Import restrictions on En oki mushrooms from Chinese Taipei  
Raised by: Chinese Taipei 
Supported by: None 
Dates raised: October 2005/Februar y 2006(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 36-38) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported. 
 
90. In February 2006, Chinese Taipei noted that in January 2005 Canada had banned imports of 
Enoki mushrooms with trace amounts of growing medi um.  Canada required that all growing medium 
be removed by cutting off the stalk of the mushroom , but this significantly reduced the shelf-life of 
the mushroom.  In March 2005, Canada had justified this new measure by explaining that the growing 
medium used for Enoki mushroom cultivation coul d be a pathway for the introduction of quarantine 
pests designated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, such as sudden oak death or the golden nematode.  These quarantine pests did not exist in  Chinese Taipei.  Furthermore, Enoki mushrooms 
were produced in Chinese Taipei under soil-free conditi ons.  Chinese Taipei considered that Canada’s 
restrictions were more trade restrictive than necessary and urged Canada to lift its import ban on 
Enoki mushrooms.   
91. Canada clarified that, historically, Chinese Taipei's mushrooms were free from growing 
medium and had been imported into Canada without  restriction.  In 2004, shipments of Enoki 
mushrooms accompanied by a significant amount of  growing material had been intercepted.  
Consistent with the provisions of the IPPC, Cana da had provided Chinese Taipei's officials with 
several official notifications of non-compliance,  including a written explanation of the scientific 
rationale for prohibiting the entry of Enoki mush rooms accompanied by growing medium.  Canada 
was waiting for scientific information on the type of pests that might be carried by the medium from 
Chinese Taipei in order to conclude a risk assessment.  The current science-based requirements would 
remain in place until Canada had assurance that the growing medium would not carry plant pest risks 
to Canada. 
CHILE 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE  
Food Safety 9.  Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Hondur as, Slovak Republic – Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella  in imported poultry products
2 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, par as. 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: Not reported 
                                                      
2 The status of this concern as regards measures taken by the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic 
is being reviewed in light of their membership in the European Communities as of 1 May 2004.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 23 
 
 
   
92. In October 1996, the United States indicated that a number of Members discriminated 
between standards for control of salmonella  in domestic versus importe d poultry 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. 
93. The Slovak Republic responded that it did not apply 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 regulations 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 be tween veterinary experts.  The representatives of Honduras and El 
Salvador indicated that they would inform thei r authorities of the statement made by the United 
States. 
94. 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 
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. 
95. 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. 
96. In July 2001, the United States reported that it was still discussing the matter with Chile 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 24  
 
  CHINA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA  
Food Safety 114. China – Food safety regulations affecting agr icultural 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: Not reported 
 
97. In March 2002, the United States but expressed serious concerns about China's Ministry of 
Agriculture implementing regulations for the manageme nt agricultural biotechnology products.  These 
regulations, originally published on 6 June 2001, were released, w ithout warning on 7 January 2002. 
The regulations, which required pre-market approva l 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.  Furthermore, certain aspects of the new regulations appeared to be inconsistent with WTO rules, and establishe d different approval pro cedures for imported and 
domestic products.  The United States welcomed  the interim measures issued on 11 March 2002, 
which streamlined measures for the importati on of biotech agricultural products through 
20 December 2002.  Canada, Argentina and Austra lia associated themselves with the concerns 
expressed by the United States.   
98. China explained that public anxiety country ove r the safety of GM agricultural products and 
foods had led the Chinese Government to issue regula tory 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 i ssued in January 2002t once the Engl ish versions had been finalised. 
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.   
99. In June 2002, the United States reported that Ch ina'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 pro ducts, 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 
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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 25 
 
 
  100. In November 2002, the United States and Ar gentina 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. China – 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: Not reported 
 
101. The United States recognized the need for China 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.  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
128. China - Import requirements for cosmetics 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  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: Not reported 
 
102. The European Communities noted that China ha d 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 26  
 
  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. 
103. 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.   
104. In November 2002, the European Communities repor ted 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. 
105. 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. 
Plant Health 
143. China – Regulation on wood packaging material 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, par as. 38-39), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 
39-40) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/14,  
Solution: Not reported 
 
106. 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. 
107. 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 Co mmunities; the measure had been imposed on 28  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 27 
 
 
  June 2002, and notified to the WTO.  The measure  was based on scientific principles and on a risk 
analysis in line with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement. 
108. In June 2003, the European Communities reported that they had now adopted the IPPC 
standard and China has promised to do the same.  China reaffirmed that it was committed to following 
the IPPC standard. 
Other Concerns 184. China – 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:  Not reported 
 
109. 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. 
110. 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 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY COSTA RICA 
Plant Health 230. Costa Rica -  Phytosanitary requirements on fresh oranges  
Raised by: Nicaragua 
Supported by: None 
Dates raised: October 2005/Februar y 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 90-92) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/CRI/43 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
111. In October 2005, Nicaragua reported that in  mid-2005 competent authorities from Nicaragua 
and Costa Rica had put in place a bi-national tec hnical team responsible for the prevention and 
eradication of C itrus leprosis , as well as the maintenance of citrus leprosis -free areas.  The team had G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 28  
 
  confirmed the presence of the Citrus leprosis in the south of Costa Rica and in the north of Nicaragua, 
as well as the Citrus leprosis-free status of south Nicaragua, the region containing commercial citrus 
fruits groves for export.  The risk analysis by Cost a Rica indicated mature fruits were not the pathway 
for the spread of the disease, hence imported fruits, which were mature, did not present any 
phytosanitary risk.  The adoption by Costa Rica of an emergency prohibition on imports from 
Nicaragua was not justified and more trade restri ctive than necessary to maintain Costa Rica's 
appropriate phytosanitary level of protection. 
112. 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 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CROATIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
166. Croatia – Import measures on live animals and meat products 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras.  28-31), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 
132 – 134) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/416 
Solution: Not reported 
 
113. 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 fr om Croatia but did not receive any reply.  
114. 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.   
115. 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.7/Add.2 
 Page 29 
 
 
  Other animal health concerns 
 
158. Croatia – Restrictions on pork imports 
Raised by: Slovenia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R29, paras. 203-204) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
116. 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. 
117. Croatia stated that it had not adopted or implemented 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. 
CUBA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA 
Plant Health 
105. Cuba - 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: Not reported 
 
118. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 30  
 
  EGYPT 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EGYPT  
Food Safety 77.  Egypt - Restrictions on canned tuna 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2000 (G /SPS/R/19, paras. 103-104) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/GEN/203 
Solution: Formal consultations requested by Thailand. 
 
119. 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. 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Food Safety 11.  European Communities (Spain) – Restriction on levels of copper and cadmium in 
imported squid 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, par as. 16-17), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 56), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: In July 2001, the United States indicated that it was not experiencing any 
problems, and was continuing to monitor the situation. 
 120. In October 1996, the United States noted that the Spanish regulation on levels of copper and 
other minerals in imported squid was discrim inatory since domestic and EC products were 
specifically exempted.  The European Communities replied that the scientific justification for 
imposing such a measure came from a WHO recommenda tion on maximum weekly intakes of metal.  
Harmonization of the permitted levels of various  metals across the European Communities was 
currently being discussed in Brussels.  Argen tina observed that the problem was not one of 
harmonization, but of national treatment. 
121. In March 1997, the United States recalled the di scriminatory nature of the measure.  The 
European Communities explained that although the norm only referred to third countries, in practice it  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 31 
 
 
  was recognized by EC member States as well.  In addition, the majority of squid imported into Spain 
came from outside the European Communities.  Sin ce Spain had a particularly high consumption of 
the products in question, this had to be taken into account in addition to WHO recommendations.   
122. In July 2001, the United States reported that it was not experiencing any problems in the area 
and was continuing to monitor the situation (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
39.  European Communities - Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs 
Raised by: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia , Brazil, The Gambia, India, Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Philippines, Senegal, Thailand 
Supported by: Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Paki stan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines on behalf 
of ASEAN, South Africa, Turkey, United States, Uruguay 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.  24-31), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 15-
19), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 11-14), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, para. 26), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 64-66), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 29-30 and 86- 87), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 
39-43), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 27-31), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 140), June 2002 (G /SPS/R/27, paras. 38-39), November 
2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 175), April 20 03 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 51-52), June 
2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 66), Marc h 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 48-49) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/51, G/SPS/GEN/50, G/SPS/GEN/52, G/SPS/GEN/54, 
G/SPS/GEN/55, G/SPS/GEN/56, G/SPS/GEN/57, G/SPS/GEN/58, G/SPS/GEN/61, G/SPS/GEN/62, G/SPS/GEN/63, G/SPS/GEN/93, G/SPS/R/28 
Solution: Maximum levels for some pr oducts and sampling procedures revised. 
 
123. In March 1998, a number of countries argued that the EC proposal to set new maximum 
levels for aflatoxins would impo se severe restrictions on trade while not resulting in a significant 
reduction in health risk to consumers.  The pr oposal did not seem to be based on a proper risk 
assessment.  Furthermore, the proposed sampli ng procedure was unduly costly, burdensome and 
unjust.  Although an international standard on the subject did not yet exist, the Codex Committee on 
Food Additives and Contaminants ( CCFAC) was considering the matter.  The complaining Members 
felt that the timing was unfortunate, and urged the European Communities to review the proposed measure. 
124. The European Communities noted that there had been no consensus in the CCFAC on the 
issue; although many countries supported the Codex norm, the European Communities did not.  The 
proposed measure reflected the EC level of protection.   With regard to the sampling procedure, since 
contamination appeared in a small percentage of ke rnels, one simple sample was not sufficient to 
minimize risk to consumers.  The proposed methods were already used by some EC member States.  
The European Communities planned to evaluate th e comments received until May 1998 and formalize 
the proposal in June 1998.  The measure would enter into effect relatively shortly afterwards. 
125. In June 1998, the European Communities reported that it had forwarded a revised proposal to 
its member States.  The EC Standing Committ ee on Foodstuffs would consider the proposed 
modifications on 17-18 June 1998.  Apart from revi sing some of the maximum levels, the European 
Communities was considering trans itional arrangements, and the new measures would not enter into 
force before 1 January 1999. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 32  
 
  126. In September 1998, Bolivia informed the Co mmittee that the proposed EC measure would 
have severe effects on Bolivian exports of Brazil nuts.  Bolivia requested to see the EC risk 
assessment, and indicated it was prepared to ente r into bilateral discussions with the European 
Communities in order to find a mutually agreeable  solution.  The United States encouraged the 
European Communities to take into account the recommendations contained in the FAO/WHO risk 
assessments establishing maximum levels for afla toxin in consumer-ready products.  The ASEAN 
countries expressed concern with maximum levels in milk, which would affect developing countries' 
feed exports. 
127. The European Communities noted that the dead line for comments had been extended to allow 
for further comments from Members.  The European  Communities had also revised its proposal, and 
was prepared to raise the proposed maximum levels in  nuts.  With regard to milk, the proposed EC 
levels were in line with the standards being discussed in Codex. 
128. In November 1998, the Chairman informed the Committee about bilateral consultations 
between Bolivia and the European Communities whic h he had been requested to facilitate.  The 
Chairman reported that the discussions had been very fruitful, and had helped Bolivia to better 
understand the rationale behind the EC measures, as  well as the EC procedures followed.  They had 
also helped the EC understanding of the potential effect of some of its measures on the Bolivian 
industry.  Technical consultations were continuing. 
129. In March 1999, Bolivia reported that it had presen ted a plan to improve its Brazil nuts, and 
consultations with the European Communities were ongoing.  Bolivia considered that this was a good 
case for the application of special and differential tr eatment.  Peru indicated that several countries had 
brought their problems with the new EC regulation on aflatoxins to the attention of the European 
Communities through their missions in Brussels, without having obtained a satisfactory response.  In particular, the European Communities had not presented a risk assessment.  The European 
Communities assured Bolivia that their common examin ation of the problem w ould continue through 
a rapid procedure.  In response to other Members,  the European Communities indicated that there had 
been ample time for comments, and that the prop osal had been revised in response to comments 
received.  On cereals, the European Communities was prepared to continue accepting comments until 
1 July 1999 and to modify the measure if there was scientific justification. 
130. In March 2001, Argentina raised concerns over EC maximum levels of contaminants in food 
products and sampling methods for aflatoxins in peanuts, other nuts, dried fruits and cereals.  
Argentina was preparing a technical submission for th e European Communities to be circulated before 
the next SPS Committee meeting. The European Communities agreed to carefully consider the 
technical document.  Regarding cereals, the Eu ropean Communities reminded Members that the 
relevant legislation had been adopted in 2000 a nd would come into effect as of 1 July 2001. 
131. Bolivia recalled the information it had provided regarding EC aflatoxin levels in Brazil nuts 
(G/SPS/GEN/93).  The European Communities had not provided a risk analysis for this measure.  
Bolivia outlined the socio-economic and ecological implications of the m easure for the area of 
production, as well as the effects on the economy.  The European Communities indicated that the science had been explained in detail in the Committee.   An EC expert had visited Bolivia in May 2000 
to evaluate the situation.  The Commission belie ved that the problems in Bolivia stemmed from 
needed improvements in the production chain and th e equipment used.  A project to address these 
issues had been included in the EU Aid Programme. 
132. In July 2001, Bolivia expressed concern about the long time it was taking to resolve the issue.  
Argentina and Chile inquired about the technical assistance and special and differential treatment 
aspects of the issue.  The European Communities noted  that Bolivia was on a high priority list for EC 
cooperation activities.  The expert mission in Ma y 2000 had concluded that  Bolivian products had  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 33 
 
 
  been meeting EC aflatoxin levels, and at least th ree private laboratories were equipped to carry out 
accurate tests.  The European Communities remained willing to di scuss technical difficulties and to 
agree on practical solutions. The European Co mmunities was promoting a project to improve 
production and storage processes and the livelihood of nut collectors, to be executed in 2002; it had 
proposed a certification procedure and hoped that Bolivia recognized the efforts being made to 
improve Brazil nut production in the region concerned.  Bolivia confirmed that bilateral meetings had 
taken place, including a discussion on possible techni cal cooperation programmes.  However, so far 
no practical measures had been taken to reduce the negative effect on trade. 
133. In October 2001, Bolivia reported that the European Communities still had not presented a 
risk analysis to justify its maximum levels for aflatoxins in Brazil nuts, nor applied special and 
differential treatment or justifie d why higher levels were permitted in similar products.  The measure 
was having a severe effect on the Bolivian economy.  Promises of technical assistance were not beneficial, and Bolivia wished to see a solution b ased on acceptance by the European Communities of 
a certificate.  The European Communities indicated that prolonged bilateral consultations had taken 
place prior to the entry into force of the measur e, and that expected trade concerns had not 
materialized. The risk assessment had been di scussed on numerous occasions in the SPS Committee 
and in JECFA.  EC technical assistance had the goal of ensuring compliance with EC standards.  A national certification and accreditation mechanism was being implemented which would allow the 
three Bolivian laboratories to issue internationally  recognized certificates.  However, no follow-up 
information had been received from Bolivia on this possible solution.  
134. In March 2002, Bolivia indicated that there ha d been no progress on the issue.  The European 
Communities reported that it had agreed to acce pt pre-shipment certification from accredited 
laboratories in Bolivia in order to avoid costly  sampling of the product upon arrival in Europe.  
However, no further information had been prov ided by Bolivia regarding the accreditation of 
laboratories nor a proposal for the pre-shipment ce rtificate.  Nonetheless, shipments of Brazil nuts 
from Bolivia met all of the EC's requirements, and the quantity of shipments continued to grow.   
135. In June 2002, Bolivia noted that although the la rger Bolivian exporters were able to meet the 
EC requirements at considerable costs and difficult ies, smaller exporters could not fulfil the EC's 
requirements.  Bolivia requested information on the manner in which the EC requirements for a 
quality control system were being applied.  Th e European Communities stressed again that no 
consignments of Brazil nuts from Bolivia had been bl ocked due to aflatoxin.  In fact, both the volume 
and value imported from Bolivia had increased in recent years.  The EC Scientific Committee for 
Food had identified aflatoxins as among the most carcinogenic and mutageni c substances known, and 
intake had to be reduced to the lowest levels  possible.  Although the European Commission had 
agreed to accept certification from authorized Bo livian laboratories, Bolivia had not provided the 
necessary information. 
136. In April 2003, Bolivia stated that a pr oposal had been submitted to the European 
Communities to strengthen the Bolivian system of ce rtification for export of Brazil nuts.  He hoped 
that a technical exchange would take place on this  proposal in the near future.  The European 
Communities noted that its authorities would need so me time to examine the Bolivian proposal.  The 
European Communities favoured certification at the point of departure by accredited laboratories and 
commended the Bolivian authorities for their proposal. 
137. In June 2003, Bolivia informed Members that a bilateral meeting had resulted in a favourable 
outcome and Bolivia should soon receive the re quired permission.  The European Communities 
indicated that the procedures for technical assistance were now in place and hoped the issue would 
soon be regarded as solved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 34  
 
  138. In March 2004, Bolivia informed Members that bilateral consultations were held with the 
European Communities on 16 March 2004 and details of the assessment visit for the certification of 
chestnuts for export to the European Communities had been finalized.  The European Communities 
stated that it would continue to cooperate with Bolivia to finalize the assistance programme. 
47.  European Communities - Measure on establishmen ts operating in the animal feed sector  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras.  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: Not reported 
 
139. 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. 
140. 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. 
141. 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 
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. 
142. 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.  European Communities - Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, par as. 37-38), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 
127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/61, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 35 
 
 
  143. 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. 
144. 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.  European Communities (Belgium) - Measures regarding canned tuna in oil 
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 
Solution: Not reported 
 
145. 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 matte r 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.  European Communities - Import restrictions on soy sauce 
Raised by: Thailand on behalf of ASEAN 
Supported by: 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: Not reported 
 
146. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 36  
 
  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 believed th at maximum levels 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. 
147. 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 
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. 
148. 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. 
149. 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 ex posure 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.   
150. 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. 
151. 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 achieveable") 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 37 
 
 
  94.  European Communities - Directiv e 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: Not reported 
 
152. 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 
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.  European Communities - 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: Not reported 
 
153. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 38  
 
  106. European Communities - Regulations on genetically modified food and feed 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Argentina, Canada, Israel, Jordan, Taipei, China, Singapore, 
Egypt 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 40-44), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 
45-56), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, para s. 84-87), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, 
para. 168) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/EEC/6 and 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 
 
154. 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 pharmaceuti cal products for human or animal use.   
155. The European Communities observed that requests 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.   
156. 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.  
157. 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".   
158. Canada believed that these proposed regulations fell 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 39 
 
 
  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 rest rictions on developing 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. 
159. Chinese Taipei stated that safet y assessment of all GM products should be based on scientific 
evidence to ensure that the prod ucts were as safe as their conventio nal counterparts.  Members should 
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.  
160. 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.   
161. 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. 
162. 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 and 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.   
163. 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.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 40  
 
  164. 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 GM Os on human health and the environment.   
165. 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. 
117. European Communities – Traceability and la belling of genetically modified organisms 
and food and feed 
Raised by: United States, Canada, Argentina 
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: Not reported 
 
166. 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.  
167. 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; consider less trade r estrictive means to achieve the 
objectives and evaluate the regulatory impact of the proposal.  
168. 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. 
169. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 41 
 
 
  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.  
170. 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 unforeseen problem;  (2) to monitor potential risks 
for the environment;  (3)  to control the accuracy of information provided on the label;  and (4)  to 
inform consumers about what they ate and to  avoid deceptive 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.  
171. 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 regulations focussed 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 fo rm 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 th at 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 no tified to the SPS Committee for information.  
172. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 42  
 
  173. 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. 
174. 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 several Members.   The regulation supported EC consumer freedom to 
choose or avoid products derived from biotechnol ogy and provided a harmonized framework that 
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. European Communities – 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: Not reported 
 
175. In June 2002, Indonesia raised concerns re garding 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.   
176. 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.   
177. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 43 
 
 
  131. European Communities – Pesticide and antibiotic limits in honey (Directive 96/23) 
Raised by: Cuba 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27/Corr.1,  para. 130), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
para. 178) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
178. 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. 
179. In November 2002, Cuba reported that progress had been made in bilateral consultations with 
the European Communities on regulation EC 96/93  setting out residue limits for imported honey. 
144. European Communities – 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, pa ras. 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: Not reported 
 
180. 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.  
181. The European Communities stated that the document put forwar d 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 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 44  
 
  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. 
182. 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. 
183. 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. European Communities – Maximum levels for aflatoxins in corn and sampling 
contaminants in food 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras.  32-33, October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 
52-53) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
184. 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. 
185. 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 
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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 45 
 
 
  169. European Communities – EC proposed regulation on maximum residue levels of 
pesticides  
Raised by: China, Argentina 
Supported by: ASEAN, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Mexico, 
Paraguay, Uruguay, ASEAN countries 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras.  75-77), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 
76-79 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/196 and Add.1 
Solution: Not reported 
 
186. 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. 
187. 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. 
188. 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. 
189. 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 Ph ilippines, on behalf of ASEAN countries, supported 
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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 46  
 
  190. 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. European Communities – 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: Not reported 
 
191. 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. 
192. Canada shared the concerns raised by the United States and noted that it had recently 
submitted comments to the European Communities.  Ca nada sought more information  regarding the 
requirements for non-EC countries. 
193.  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, 
would facilitate trade through more transparency and the exchange of information on controls or 
checks for third countries.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 47 
 
 
  176. European Communities (Germany) – Notifica tion on maximum tolerance levels for 
ocratoxin A in coffee  
Raised by: Colombia, Papua New Guinea 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salv ador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Nicaragua, 
Cuba, India, Ecuador, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica 
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 and Add.1, G/SPS/GEN/434, G/SPS/GEN/470 
Solution: Not reported 
 
194. 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  2003.  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. 
195. 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. 
196. 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. 
197. 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. 
198. 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.  
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. 
199. 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 23rd session in March 
1991.  A risk assessment of the consequences 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 48  
 
  consumption  data for European type diets.  Ce reals 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 To lerable Weekly Intake of 100 nonograms/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 36
th Session.  
200. 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, latter 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. European Communities – 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: Not reported 
 
201. China raised concerns that the maximum resi due limits (MRLs) notified in G/SPS/N/EEC/236 
and 237 were several times higher 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. 
202. 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 notificati ons G/SPS/N/EEC/236 and 237 should read 19 January 
2005 instead of 19 January 2004.  Furthermore, so me of the Codex MRLs mentioned by China were 
proposed for revocation at the next meeting of th e Codex Alimentarius Commission.  EC MRLs for 
pesticide quantities in foodstuffs were higher th an 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 49 
 
 
  197. European Communities – EC regulation on Ocratoxin A in coffee  
Raised by: Colombia 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Kenya, Peru,  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, pa ras. 61-67), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, 
paras 168-170). 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/475, G/SPS/GEN/490, G/SPS/GEN/515, G/SPS/R/33 (paras. 
34-39), G/SPS/N/EEC/247, G/SPS/N/EEC/247/Add.2. 
Solution: Not reported 
 203. 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. 
204. Colombia continued to be concerned about th e impact of the measures on the marketing of 
coffee in Europe and had raised several questi ons as outlined in G/SPS/GEN/515.  The European 
Communities were asked to explain why OTA levels were set for coffee when coffee contributed only 
8 per cent of the intake of OTA in the European di et compared with cereals and cereal products which 
contributed 50 per cent of the intake of OTA.  Scie ntific justification for the levels of OTA set for 
coffee was requested from the Europ ean Communities, as well as an explanation of the method used 
to determine the OTA levels.  The European Comm unities were also requested to explain why the 
OTA levels for coffee and cereals and cereal products  were the same when the intake of OTA was 
higher in cereals and cereal products than in coffee.   Moreover, if the OTA levels for beer were 
indirectly controlled by its main input, malt, why were not the OTA levels for soluble coffee 
indirectly controlled by its main input, roasted coff ee.  Finally, the European Communities were asked 
to explain why there was a need to protect public  health with regards to coffee and not beer.  
Colombia suggested that the European Communitie s consult studies on OTA toxicology as a starting 
point in establishing maximum OTA levels in green  coffee.  The entire production chain would need 
to be regulated when establishing maximum levels of OTA for green coffee which would be both impractical and counterproductive as additional infrastructure and stor age facilities would be needed.  
Furthermore, the risks of formation of mycotoxins were increased during prolonged periods of storage 
due to the condensation and re-hum idification process in the beans.  OTA levels should not be set 
until there was scientific justification.  The Codex Al imentarius was requested to consider the issue of 
maximum levels of OTA in coffee in the join t FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 
(JECFA). 
205. 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. 
206. The Codex Alimentarius reported that little pr ogress had been made on this issue in Codex 
since the March meeting of the SPS Committee.  Codex had not established Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for green and roasted coffee but ha d been working to establish MRLs in cereals for 
several years.  However, this was still at the ela boration stage due to the lack of consensus on the 
numerical limits. The Codex Committee for Food  Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) had 
requested JECFA to include the ri sk assessments on OTA for evaluation by 2006.  At the last meeting 
of the CCFAC, a suggestion was made to include new work in Codex on the development of a code of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 50  
 
  practice to reduce mycotoxin contamination in coffee and cocoa.  This proposal will be discussed at 
the next CCFAC meeting in April 2005. 
207. The European Communities explained that once EC harmonized standard s were established, 
national standards ceased to be effective.  From the perspective of the exporting country, the EC 
harmonized standards had the advantage of being lo wer than the national standards of many member 
States.  The responses to Colombia’s questions w ould be made available through the Secretariat and 
the European Commission’s website contained info rmation on the methodology used to determine the 
level of OTA in coffee.  The EC draft regulati on covered ground and roasted coffee but not green and 
soluble coffee.  MRLs for OTA had already been  established for grains and its by-products and 
raisins.  Furthermore, MRLs for OTA for wine a nd wine based beverages had been proposed.  While 
studies had concluded that cereals and cereal-based products were the main sources of consumer 
exposure to OTA, wine, grape juice and roasted an d soluble coffee also contributed significantly to 
consumer exposure.  The European Communities would reassess its decision on the basis of the 
results of the toxicology studies on OTA that would be available in 2006. 
208. 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. 
209. Chile identified similar concerns and sought in formation on maximum ochratoxin levels for 
wine, which faced a similar situation. 
210. 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. European Communities – 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):  
Solution: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 51 
 
 
  211. 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. 
212. 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.  
206. European Communities (Greece) - Inspection and testing procedures for imported 
wheat 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 32-33), Octobe r 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 222-223) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
213. In March 2005, Canada reported that Gree ce had introduced new inspection and testing 
requirements for imports of grains from third countriesin August 2004 that exceeded existing EC 
requirements by requiring the testing of 100% of  shipments.  Greece had provided no scientific 
rationale to justify the introduction of these measure s and Canada considered the Greek measures to 
be inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.  Cana da's concerns had already been unsuccessfully 
expressed on numerous occasions to both Greek and EC  officials, including at technical level.  
214. The European Communities stated  that the Commission had been in extensive bilateral 
contacts with both Canadian and Greek authorities in an effort to find a solution.  Greece was in the 
process of adjusting three major aspects of the ministerial decision with the aim of bringing its 
measure into full compliance with the SPS Agreem ent.  In particular, Greek authorities were 
considering the repeal of the provisions establishing a dditional quality criteria, the re-establishment of 
the normal EC requirements with regards to t esting, sampling and inspection procedures and 
removing any provisions that might be viewed  as discriminatory against imported products. 
215. In February 2006, Canada stated that although the Greek authorities had made some useful 
amendments in late March 2005, the issue had recentl y deteriorated.  Canada noted in particular the 
frequency of inspections, the lengthy detention peri ods of up to two months, and Greece's requirement 
for a 1.5% limit on fusarian damaged kernels in grain shipment.  In addition, in December 2005, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 52  
 
  Greece had required that 100% of a shipment be test ed for the presence of GM wheat, regardless of 
the fact that no validated test for the presence of GM wheat existed.  Canada had unsuccessfully 
offered to accompany each shipment with a letter cer tifying the absence of registered GM wheat in 
Canada.  These requirements were discriminatory as they only applied to cereals originating outside 
the European Communities.  
207. European Communities - Directives on resi dual pesticide tolerance and inspection 
methods for tea 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: India 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 22-24) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
216. 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. 
217. 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. 
218. The European Communities clarified that the cu rrent regulation on MRLs for pesticides was a 
combination of EC and member States MRLs.  The European Communities was in the process of 
adopting a new regulation on MRLs for pesticides in all food and feedstuffs that would harmonize all 
EC member states' national legislation and woul d likely enter into force in mid 2006.  The EC 
inspection methods for tea were based on the existin g Codex methods.  Regarding India's concern, the 
European Communities did not intend to discriminate against tea in relation with any other beverage. 
208. European Communities -  Food and feed hygiene rules 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States, Jamaica 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 15-18) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/GEN/539 
Solution: Not reported 
 
219. 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.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 53 
 
 
  220. The European Communities recalled that a docum ent clarifying the traceability provisions of 
the new body of legislation had been circulated in February 2005 (G/SPS/GEN/539).  This document 
explained that the aim of traceability provisions we re intended to identify each link in the chain of 
supply in the event of product recalls.  A seminar ope n to all third countries would be held in Brussels 
to explain the consequences of the entry into  force of the food and feed hygiene rules. 
220. European Communities (United Kingdom) - Proposed regulations for piper 
methysticum (kava-kava)  
Raised by: Fiji 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 72-73) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/GBR/4 
Solution: Not reported 
 
221. At the June 2005 meeting, Fiji expressed concerns regarding the UK notification of 
emergency measures on kava-kava, as  kava-kava was one of Fiji's few tradable crops of economic 
significance.  Fiji's concerns were related to the request of the UK Commission on Safety of 
Medicines (CSM) to prohibit kava-kava use in unli censed medicinal products on the grounds that the 
CSM had sufficient evidence to conclude that kava -kava was associated with rare cases of liver 
toxicity.  According to an in-depth investiga tion of kava-kava products conducted by a German 
consulting firm in 2003, the efficacy and safety of kava-kava had been proven by 20 clinical trials 
including more than 10,000 patients and supporte d by post-marketing experience in Europe, the 
United States and other areas.  Health author ities such as the US Food and Drug Administration 
agreed that kava-kava was a safe drug.  Findings also  showed that should the toxicity exist, it would 
occur in an extremely low number of patients, far below the incident rate observed with other freely 
available drugs.  Out of 450 million kava-kava pills exported all over the word between 1990 and 
2000, only three cases of liver problems had been li nked to the pills.  The Fiji kava-kava council was 
currently drafting a legislative text including, inter alia , standards, certification and labelling to ensure 
consistency and quality of supply.  Fiji request ed the European Communities to provide any new 
evidence that supported the claim that the cons umption of products containing kava-kava was 
associated with liver damage. 
222. 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.7/Add.2 
Page 54  
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 17.  European Communities – Cosmetics and  BSE 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: Brazil, United States, Chile 
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: Not reported 
 
223. 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.  European Communities (France) – Certification requirements for pet food 
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: Not reported 
 
224. 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. 
225. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 55 
 
 
  226. 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.  European Communities – 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, Uruguay, Switzerland 
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: Not reported 
 
227. 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.3 
228. 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. 
229. 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. 
230. 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. 
                                                      
3 Argentine Scientific Advisory Committee on Bovine Sp ongiform Encephalopathy (1st Meeting), April 7-8-9-10, 
1997, Buenos Aires, Argentina, "Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación".  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 56  
 
  32.  European Communities – 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. 
 231. 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. 
232. 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. 
233. 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 
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. 
234. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 57 
 
 
  nature.  The European Communities was proposing flex ible solutions which both parties might find 
acceptable. 
235. 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 required certification by a competent authority.   
236. In October 2001, Brazil reported that intense bilateral consultations on Brazilian processing 
methods and controls had resulted in the European  Communities lifting its restrictions as of 13 June 
2001. 
96. European Communities – Geographical BSE risk assessment  
Raised by: Canada, India, Chile 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, par as. 35-36), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 
22-26) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
237. In 2001, Canada requested information on the EC geographical BSE risk assessment (GBR) 
process, the consistency of its application and how assessments could be reviewed when risks 
changed.  Canada noted that the OIE was developing a system to verify countries' own assessments of 
their BSE status, and wondered how it would rela te to the EC system.  The United States was 
concerned that the European Communities was appl ying similarly stringent measures to countries 
with significantly different risk factors, a practice which lacked scientific justification and ran counter 
to existing international standards.  It was not entirely transparent how country classifications would 
be determined nor what requirements would be applied in the meantime.  The United States had 
submitted detailed comments identifying a number of problems with the methodology and with the 
information related to the United States.  The Unite d States urged countries to take the OIE standard 
into account when developing their BSE measures.  The OIE representative clarified that the OIE 
would deal only with recognition of BSE freedom, not with the other four categories contained in the 
International Animal Health Code (G/SPS/ GEN/266).  The Commission on FMD and other 
Epizootics had received the mandate to develop gui delines to help member countries carry out their 
risk assessment, taking into account th e experience from GBR assessments. 
238. The European Communities explained that GBRs were based on information provided by 
trading partners in a 1998 questionnaire.  The GBR methodology had been established by the EC 
Scientific Steering Committee.  The new EC B SE-TSE measure was in conformity with the OIE 
Code, but the GBR pre-dated the current OIE Code .  Any new scientific evidence could be submitted 
to the Commission and a re-evaluation of a GBR would be considered once additional stability 
measures had been implemented, allowing three to five years to take into account the incubation 
period of BSE.  The EC representative explained the stability factors that were taken into 
consideration; these were considered on a case-by- case basis.  The European  Communities considered 
that the GBR reflected the international standard , and was willing to cooperate with Members and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 58  
 
  provide information.  Knowledge about this disease should be shared to minimize trade effects where 
possible. 
239. In June 2005, India expressed c oncerns regarding the categorization of India in the suspected 
list of the GBR.  The assumptions made by th e European Communities while conducting the risk 
assessment needed to be reconsidered, as BSE had ne ver been reported in Indian cattle and buffalos.  
India had made these concerns known to the Eur opean Communities on several occasions..  The EC 
categorization had the potential to disrupt India's beef  trade not only with EC member States but also 
with its other trading partners.   
240. The European Communities described its BSE impo rt regime in relation to beef and beef 
products as proportionate, non-discriminatory and scien ce-based.  The recent findings of BSE in both 
the United States and Canada had not led to me asures from the European Communities.  The EC 
classification system had been introduced due to insufficient progress in the OIE with the 
development of an international framework on trade in beef and beef products and BSE.  In that 
context, the European Communities encouraged all OIE members, including India, to work towards 
OIE country classifications which would allo w the European Communities to abandon its 
classification.  The European Communities clarifie d that, unless the OIE failed to classify countries, 
India's existing classification would not be revisited since it had been carried out on an independent 
basis by EC scientists.   
241. In February 2006, Chile noted that while it had never registered any cases of BSE, in 2005 the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluated Chile as being a country where BSE was likely to occur or had been confirmed (Category 3 of th e GBR).  Chile disagreed with EFSA's analysis, 
particularly the time-frame and some of the da ta underpinning the analysis.  Chile had sent 
documentation to EFSA and the European Commission but had not received any reply or comment.  
EFSA's classification cast doubt on the BSE situati on in Chile and had negative impacts on Chile's 
industry.  An ad hoc group of the OIE had noted that Chile satisfied requirements for a country provisionally free of BSE.  Chile urged EFSA to recognize the OIE evaluation. 
242. The representative of the European Communities noted that while EFSA had classified Chile 
as a Category 3 risk, the European Communities remained  open to reassessing the status in the light of 
the OIE revised code on BSE.  If the OIE were to classify Chile as provisionally free, the European Communities would take this into consideration.  However only Argentina, Iceland, Singapore and 
Uruguay were in this particular cat egory.  However, even if a country was categorized as a Category 3 
risk of BSE, trade could still take place if appropriate measures were in place. 
97. European Communities – Restrictions on the use of fishmeal  
Raised by: Chile, Peru, Norway 
Supported by: Ecuador, United States, Iceland, Norway, Peru, Chile 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras.  17-21), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
12-17), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 31-32), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 
134-136), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/ 36/Rev.1, paras. 74-77) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/GEN/256, G/SPS/GEN/264 
Solution: Not reported 
 
243. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 59 
 
 
  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). 
244. 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. 
245. 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. 
246. The European Communities clarified that the legislation was a provisional measure that 
covered the internal use of fishmeal.  As all pr oducers were requested to fulfil the same conditions, 
the measure was not discriminatory.  A derogation allowed the use of fishmeal in feeds for non-
ruminant animals provided certain strict produc tion and handling conditions were met.  The 
development of a reliable, but l ess laborious detection test would be a decisive element when 
reviewing the feed ban, and efforts were underw ay in the Communities in this regard.  The 
representative of the European Communities questioned claims that the EC regulations had an adverse 
impact on trade. 
247. In March 2002, Peru stated that there was a l ack of political will on the part of the European 
Communities to reach a solution to this problem.  Fish meal posed no risk of BSE for human or animal 
health, but the EC measure created doubts among other countries, which resulted in a negative impact 
on fishmeal trade.  Furthermore, as the EC measure  had been extended indefinitely, it could no longer 
be justified as a provisional measure.  
248. The European Communities noted that the measur e was maintained due to demonstrated cases 
of cross-contamination detected through the EC's detection system.  One tool which could help G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 60  
 
  resolve this issue was a reliable test which c ould distinguish mammalian meals from fishmeal.  
Unfortunately, although under development, such a t est would not be available in the near future. The 
European Communities requested Peru  to provide evidence of trade disruption as a result of the EC 
measure, as no disruption was apparent in EU trade statistics.  
249. 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. 
250. 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. 
251. 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.   
252. 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. 
107. European Communities – Transitional TSE measures  
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 5-8) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
253. Canada expressed concern about loss of access to the EC markets for pet food, live bovine 
animals, embryos, ova and tallow in the wake of the adoption of transitional TSE measures by the European Communities.  Canada stated that the EC  regulations classified countries according to four 
levels of risk, but applied only two levels of risk  management.  According to the OIE criteria, Canada 
was BSE-free, yet Canadian exports faced identical tr ade restrictions to EC member States in which 
BSE was prevalent.  These problems would be comp ounded by EC animal waste regulations due next 
year which threatened to prohibit the few remaini ng animal products that Ca nada could still export to  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 61 
 
 
  the European Communities.  Canada requested to be removed from the scope of application of these 
measures.  The United States agreed that the Eur opean Communities was applying stringent measures 
to countries that were either not affected by BSE, or which had significantly different risk factors.  
This approach lacked scientific justification and ran counter to international standards.  The European 
Communities explained that the transitional measur es laid down import conditions for products of 
bovine, ovine and caprine origin, and would be exte nded to cover certification of other products of 
animal origin.  Pet food was included to protect  consumers' health. An exemption was made for 
countries classified in category one (presence of BSE unlikely), but neither Canada nor the United States were in this category.   
159. European Communities –  Proposal on animal by-products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Brazil, China, Australia, Canada 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29  par as. 40-45), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30 paras. 47-
49), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31 paras.  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 
Solution: Not reported 
 
254. 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 co ncerns raised by the United States.  
255. 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. 
256. 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.  
257. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 62  
 
  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. 
258. 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. 
259. The European Communities explained that tran sitional measures had been adopted for EC 
members States and additional time for compliance for all third parties allowed until 31 December 
2003 (EC 1812/2003).  Certification of imports had been reviewed and notified.  The European 
Communities had decided to offer targeted transitio nal measures to third co untries on a case-by-case 
basis.   A technical agreement, based on comme nts received from Australia, Canada, China and the 
United States, would be notified shortly.  The Eu ropean Communities were awaiting the conclusions 
of a scientific review to produce the risk assessme nt which would be available in February 2004. 
260. 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. 
261. 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. 
262. 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 enforcem ent strategy would be implemented until 15 August  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 63 
 
 
  2004.  Although no problems had yet been reported by  Canadian exporters, problems could arise with 
the end of "soft" enforcement in August. 
263. 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. 
160. European Communities  - 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: Not reported 
 
264. 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. 
265. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 64  
 
  Concerns related to FMD 
161. European Communities – 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: Not reported 
 
266. 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. 
267. 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. 
Other animal health concerns  
33.  European Communities – Salmonella-related restriction on fishmeal imports 
Raised by: Chile and Peru 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 48-50) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
268. 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 
should be applied to feedingstuffs of vegetable orig in.  Some EC member States had introduced heat  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 65 
 
 
  treatment requirements, although others had fo und that there were not sufficient grounds for 
introducing such criteria. 
269. 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.  European Communities - 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: Not reported 
 
270. 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, and therefore had no effect on trade.   
170. European Communities – 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: Not reported 
 
271. 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. 
272. 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.7/Add.2 
Page 66  
 
  171. European Communities – Animal health co nditions 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: Not reported 
 
273. 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. 
274. 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. European Communities – Sanitary conditions for the importation of live material for 
apiculture 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Australia, New Zealand, United States 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, pa ras. 42-44), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 
56-58), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, par as. 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: Not reported 
 
275. 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. 
276. The United States expected that the new regula tion would take into account disease free areas, 
for example, Hawaii was free from the two pests.  Au stralia supported the US position and stated that 
the EC proposed requirement was unreasonable and n eeded to take into account disease free status.  
New Zealand supported the comments made by Argentina, the United States and Australia. 
277. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 67 
 
 
  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. 
278. In March 2004, Argentina reiterated that the presence of the small hive beetle ( Aethina 
tumida ) and the Tropilaelaps  mite had not been reported in Ar gentina.  The 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.   
279. 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 pesticid e 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. 
280. 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. 
281. 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 
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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 68  
 
  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.  European Communities – 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: Not reported 
 
282. 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.  European Communities - Wood packing material 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Chile, Japan, Korea, United States 
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 33-35) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/93 
Solution: Not reported 
 
283. 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 
international trade, and the proposed EC measure w ould cover 69% of Canada's  exports to the EC.  
Furthermore, the IPPC was working on a comprehensiv e standard for all countries and all pests, to be 
completed by July 2002, it would be best for 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. 
284. 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 mu ltilateral consultations 
would continue.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 69 
 
 
  98.  European Communities – 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: Not reported 
 
285. 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 origin ated from agreed pest-free 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. 
108. European Communities - 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: Not reported 
 
286. 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. 
287. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 70  
 
  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. 
288. 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. 
289. 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 
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. European Communities (Spain - Canary  Islands) - Phytosanitary regulations 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 97-98), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 
42) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
290. 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. 
291. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 71 
 
 
  199. European Communities (Spain - Canary Islands) – Deviation from international 
standard for wood packing material 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, China, Mexico, Ph ilippines, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, 
Argentina, Chile 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as. 30-37), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 65-68, June 2005 (G/SPS/R/ 37/Rev.1, paras. 65-69), October 
2005/February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 69-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/221 and Add.1-3, G/SPS/GEN/556 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
292. 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. 
293. 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. 
294. 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. 
295. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 72  
 
  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. 
296. 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. 
297. In June 2005, the United States emphasized th at it was still concerned about the pending 
implementation of this new directive, which woul d affect US agricultural and commercial products 
packaged in wood material exported to the Europ ean Communities.  The United States reiterated its 
request for a detailed pest risk analysis or scientific  evaluation justifying this additional requirement.  
Canada suggested extension of the delay until th e IPPC had reviewed and assessed the technical 
justification for this requirement..  In addition, Cana da encouraged parties to work together to try to 
pursue a harmonized approach for the regulation of wood packaging, irrespective of the outcome of 
the IPPC review.  The Philippines invited Members to wait for further information on the EC risk 
analysis and related technical justification for de barking.  The Dominican Republic and Jamaica noted 
the difficulties experienced by many developing countries exporting to the European Communities, 
particularly in their efforts to meet the requireme nts of ISPM 15. Argentina and Chile noted that a 
working group in the IPPC was working on the issue of debarking.  
298. 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 debark ing requirement of Directive 2004/102/EC, it had 
postponed its entry into force as a consequence of the numerous comments received from several 
Members with regard to the potential for very serious disruption of trade, in order to review and strengthen its scientific justification.  The Eur opean Commission was currently putting together a 
technical dossier with the intention of presenting it to the IPPC International Forestry Quarantine 
Research Group in November 2005. 
299. 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. 
300. 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. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 73 
 
 
  209. European Communities -  Plant health directive 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 40-41) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
301. 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. 
302. 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. European Communities - Agricultural biotechnology approval process 
Raised by: United States  
Supported by: Canada, Argentina, Australia, Philippines 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 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); WT/DS 291/24, WT/DS292/18, WT/DS293/18 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: DSB Panel established Au gust 2003, constituted March 2004 
303. The United States expressed concern regarding th e lack of a functioning approval process in 
the European Communities for agricultural bi otechnology 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 74  
 
  scientific basis.  Furthermore, the proposed re gulations were fundamentally unworkable, as 
demonstrated by the one per cent threshold for the adventitious presence of GMOs.   
304. 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. 
305. 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 Marc h 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 e xpressed by the United States and Canada.  
306. 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 th e European Parliament and the member States.   
307. 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. 
308. 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. 
309. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 75 
 
 
  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 
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.  
310. The Philippines shared the concerns expressed  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.  
311. 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 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY GUATEMALA  
Plant Health 211. Guatemala - Restrictions on the transit of avocados  
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 28-29) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
312. In March 2005, Mexico observed that Guatemal a had imposed restrictions on the transit of 
avocados.  Progress had been made recently in fi nding a solution to the problem, and Mexico would 
monitor the issue bilaterally and in the context of  the Regional Organization for Agricultural Health 
(OIRSA).  Guatemala confirmed its willingness to  continue working on this issue with Mexico. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 76  
 
  HONDURAS 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other animal health concerns 145. Honduras – 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/Add.1  
Solution: Not reported 
 313. 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 f our 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 
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.  
314. 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 requ ested 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. 
315. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 77 
 
 
  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.   
316. In April 2003, Costa Rica noted that bilateral consultations were progressing 
(G/SPS/GEN/347/Add.1).  Honduras reported that 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. India – Ban on food grade wax 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 38-39) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution:  Not reported 
 
317. 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. 
318. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 78  
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
61.  India – 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), November 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 a nd expected solution reported in July 2001. 
 
319. 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. 
320. 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. 
321. In June 2000, Canada informed the Committee that bilateral consultations had failed to 
resolve the matter, and that India continued to rest rict 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 trad e in bovine semen, and (iv) the absence of a risk 
assessment to justify India's ban on bovine semen.  Ca nada asked that India remove this restriction.  
India noted that recent bilateral consultations had b een helpful and that efforts were being made to 
find a solution to the dispute. 
322. 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. 
323. 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.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 79 
 
 
  324. 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. 
325. 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. 
326. 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. 
327. In April 2003, Canada stated that although a successful conclusion had been reported to the 
Committee in July 2001, a further problem had be en encountered and an import licence 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. 
185. India - Restrictions due to avian influenza 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras.  18-20), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 42-
43), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 59-60) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IND/13/Add.1, G/SPS/N/IND/14 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
328. The European Communities rai sed concerns on measures applied by India on 3 March 2004 
on imports of live birds, fresh poultry meat and meat  products due to avian influenza.  These measures 
were not notified as required by the SPS Agreement.   In addition, India's restrictions were 
disproportionate to the health risks associated w ith imports from the European Communities since the 
European Communities were free of the highly pathogeni c avian influenza.  India was requested to lift 
the restrictions on EC products.  The United States sh ared the concerns of the European Communities.  
329. India explained that restrictions on poultry im ports were temporary measures to address the 
emerging threat of introduction of highly pathogeni c avian influenza.  The measures were intended to 
protect farmers for whom poultry production was an essential source of income.  Delays in the 
reporting of outbreaks increased the risk of the viru s spreading into other countries.  In addition, 
infected poultry did not always exhibit clinical signs  of the disease.  Once intr oduced into the country, 
the disease would be impossible to control.  In dia was taking all measures necessary to gather G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 80  
 
  information on efforts to contain the disease gl obally and welcomed information from exporting 
Members who were free of the disease. 
330. In June 2004, the European Communities stated th at India continued to apply import bans on 
a range of poultry products from several countries al legedly in response to highly pathenogenic avian 
influenza.  India was requested to review the cu rrent ban and lift all rest rictions on poultry products 
from the European Communities.  India responded that the measures prohibiting poultry and poultry 
products had been implemented as temporary measur es.  New outbreaks of highly pathenogenic avian 
influenza in WTO Members, but not within the te rritories of the European Communities, had been 
reported as recently as 4 June 2004.  Since poultry production in India was typically a family-run 
business, Indian authorities were particularly con cerned about potential hu man development of the 
disease.   
331. In October 2004, the European Co mmunities stated that India had issued two notifications, on 
7 July and on 6 August, informing Members of th e relaxation of the ban fo r a range of products.  
However, the ban was disproportionate to the risk, had no scientific basis and should be confined to 
regions affected by the disease following OIE guidelines and recommendations.  India was requested 
to review its ban and bring its me asures into conformity with the SPS Agreement.  India stated that 
the ban was a temporary measure which was enfo rced due to the outbreak of avian influenza 
throughout the world.  The situati on had been under constant review since the imposition of the ban in 
February 2004.  The ban on imports of poultry w ith vaccination and specific pathogen free eggs was 
lifted in July 2004.  A subsequent review by an expert group resulted in the continuation of the ban on 
imports of certain products such as live and raw poultry and pig meat.  Processed products from HPAI 
infected countries were allowed into India, however , and the situation continued to be monitored.  
Plant Health 
186. India – Phytosanitary import restrictions 
Raised by: United States, European Communities 
Supported by: European Communiti es, Canada, Chile, New Zealand 
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 
 332. 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 physotsanitary 
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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 81 
 
 
  333. 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. 
334. 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-control ag ents.  The Plant Quarantine Order of 18 November 
2003, came into force on 1 January 2004 and the app lication of some provisi ons deferred to 1 April 
2004.  The regulations were made available on th e website immediately after its publication and a 
number of India's trading partners had sought clar ification bilaterally.  The Plant Quarantine Order 
was amended on 6 February 2004 to increase clarity  and take account of Member's concerns.   
335. 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. 
336. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 82  
 
  337. 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.  
338. 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 November 2003, but were notified only in 
January 2004, two months after the measure had come  into force.  Bilateral discussions were held 
with India where it was agreed that US alm onds would be allowed under the previous import 
requirements until June 2005.  Phosphine was a proven and effective treatment for quarantine and 
storage pests associated with almonds.  None theless, the United States 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 effi cacy of phosphine as a fumigant.  However, until 
field data was available, US almonds would be allo wed into India subject to fumigation at the port of 
entry. 
Other Concerns 
192. India – Non-notification of various SPS measures 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities, New Zealand 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras.  52-54), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 
80-82), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev. 1, paras. 69-70), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 48-50) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/R/33 (paras. 23-31) 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
339. 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.  
340. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 83 
 
 
  341. In March 2005, the United States again expressed concern regarding India's non-compliance 
with  its transparency obligations under the SPS Agreement andrequested India to suspend the 
implementation of measures on dairy products and pet food until a WTO notification was made available and a reasonable time provided to Members for their review and comment.  The European Communities shared the concerns of the United States.   India stated that it would take the necessary 
steps to notify SPS requirements as soon as possible. 
342. In June 2005, the  United States noted that a lthough India had  improved its coordination on 
SPS issues, some Indian departments continued to note notify   SPS measures implemented. The United States requested that India notify new and revised food regulations and import conditions.   
343. 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.  
344. India explained that it had recently notified th e establishment of three separate enquiry points 
with clearly delineated responsibilities.  These e fforts had achieved greater coordination among 
agencies, as demonstrated by the number of recent no tifications that had been submitted at an early 
stage in the development of the regulation and with a due period for comments. 
 
INDONESIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA  
Food Safety 
146. Indonesia – 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/IDN/17 
Solution: Not reported 
 
345. 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. 
346. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 84  
 
  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.   
347. 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 promoters in poultry had been banned internationally.  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to FMD 
111. Indonesia - FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, par as. 92-93) (see also item 132), October 2003 
(G/SPS/R/31, paras. 35-36), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 34-35), October 
2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 53-55, Marc h 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 48-
49), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras 175-176). 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/240 
Solution: Not reported 
 
348. 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. 
349. 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. 
350. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 85 
 
 
  351. 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.   
352. Indonesia explained that any country wishing to export to Indonesia must be free of FMD and 
rudderpost as stipulated in the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture Decree 1992.  Countries meeting these requirements were allowed to export to Indonesi a.  With respect to Argentina, imports were 
allowed when Argentina was decl ared FMD-free in 2000.  However,  imports were suspended when 
there was an outbreak of the disease.  Argentina a nd Brazil had not been declared FMD-free without 
vaccination by the OIE.  The same conditions al so applied to soybean and soybean products and 
imports would be allowed into Indonesia on ce the outbreaks were brought under control. 
353. In March 2005, Argentina argued that Indonesia's re strictions were  inconsistent with Articles 
2.2, 5.1 and 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.  Not only  did Indonesia's requirements exceed the provisions 
of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the OI E, but they were even less justified now that 
Argentina had recovered its status of free from FM D with vaccination in the region north of latitude 
42°.  Indonesia noted that it had submitted a protocol  for the approval and inspection of exports of 
meat products from Argentina and was wa iting for the response from Argentina. 
354. In June 2005, Argentina recalled that Indonesia's requirement that the country of origin had 
been FMD-free for at least 12 months prior to sh ipment,and had not vaccinated against the disease in 
three years, exceeded the OIE Code , especially as Argentina had regained its FMD-free status.  Brazil 
reportedsimilar experien ced problems with exports of meat and meat products to Indonesia.  
Indonesia indicated the concerns would be forwarded to the relevant authorities.   
355. 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.   
356. Indonesia clarified that it had a policy of maxi mum security for imported products of animal 
origin based on two criteria, animal health and vete rinary public health.  The overall objective was to 
maintain Indonesia’s status as a country free fro m all major diseases such as FMD and BSE, and to 
protect consumers' health and spiritual comfort through assuring the safety of animals distributed in 
Indonesia.  Indonesia undertook on site reviews of potential exporters in order to collect direct and 
detailed information as a prerequisite for import au thorisation.  In December 2005, Indonesia had 
notified Argentina of its intention to visit Argen tina in order to undertake an on site review.   
132. Indonesia – Import restrictions on dairy products  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  17-18), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 
54-55), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, para s. 72-73), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, 
paras. 43), ), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 50-51) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally, G/SPS/GEN/324 
Solution: Resolved 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 86  
 
  357. Argentina stated that as a result of the outbreak of FMD in 2001, Indonesia had banned 
imports of milk products, incons istent with the SPS Agreement and OIE guidelines.  The OIE Code 
stipulated that milk products be accepted if the sanitary authority of the exporting country certified 
that the necessary requirements had been introduced .  Indonesian had not provided the opportunity for 
the Argentine National Agriculture and Food Qualit y and Health Service (SENASA) to certify the 
requirements set forth by the OIE.  Indonesia indicated that import restrictions imposed on Argentina 
due to FMD only applied to fresh milk.  Other da iry products, including skimmed milk, cream, butter, 
cheese and yoghurt, were not restricted.  Restrictions on fresh milk were based on the fact that Argentina was not listed by the OIE as a country with zones free of FMD. 
358. In November 2002, Argentina indicated that some practical difficulties still impeded 
Argentine dairy products, other than liquid milk, from entering Indonesia.  Indonesia reported that as 
Argentina fulfilled the first provisions a questionn aire which would provided to them, Indonesia 
would send an inspection team to Argentina.  Indonesia hoped that this would lead to a resolution of the problem.   
359. In April 2003, Argentina reported that it ha d completed the questionnaire and extended an 
invitation to Indonesia but Indonesia had not yet sent an inspection team.  Restrictions on imports of 
Argentine milk remained and Argentina requested  clarification from Indonesia.  Indonesia recalled 
that a questionnaire had been sent to Argentina on 27 January 2003.  Out of five plants in Argentina, 
only one had the necessary controls.  If Argent ina could provide information on its control 
programmes, an investigating officer would be sent to conduct an on-site review of the plants in 
Argentina.  Indonesia was confident that furthe r bilateral efforts would resolve this issue. 
360. In June 2003, Argentina reported that good prog ress had been made toward the resolution of 
the problem.  Indonesia confirmed that the bilatera l consultations had led to an agreement to send 
Indonesian inspectors to Argentina. 
361. In March 2004, Argentina informed Members th at Indonesian officials had conducted a risk 
analysis on Argentine dairy produc ts and concluded that Argentina's exports did not pose a FMD 
threat.  Restrictions on Argentina were lifted a nd this issue was consider ed resolved.  Indonesia 
reported that an inspection team from Indonesia had visited Argentina on 12-20 January 2004 and 
Argentina's monitoring system with respect to FMD was found to be satisfactory.  Two of the five 
plants inspected met Indonesia's requirements and were eligible to export milk powder to Indonesia as 
long as they continued to meet the OIE recommendations and guidelines. 
Plant Health 
21.  Indonesia - 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: Not reported 
 
362. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 87 
 
 
  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. 
ISRAEL  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
55.  Israel - 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: Not reported 
 
363. 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.. 
JAPAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN  
Food Safety 147. Japan - 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: Not reported 
 
364. The European Communities indicated that a list 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 88  
 
  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.  
365. 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 countr y depending upon custom s 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. 
366. 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.   
367. 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 
(including 3 flavouring agents) were designated as authorized 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. Japan - Amendment of the food sanitation law 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: 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: Not reported 
 
368. 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 San itation Law would enter into force on 7 September 
2002.  A related emergency notif ication had been made on 7 September 2002 (G/SPS/N/JPN/86). 
China questioned the appropriateness of the use of  emergency notifications, as Members could not 
comment before the measure had been enforced.  China requested Japan to provide the scientific 
evidence, including a risk analysis, 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.  
369. 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 pr epared to consider the matter further on a bilateral basis.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 89 
 
 
  370. In February 2005, Japan reported that it had responded to China's comments on notification 
G/SPS/N/JPN/86 in November 2002 and had not since received any objections from China. 
178. Japan – Revision of standards and specifications for foods 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 
Solution: Not reported 
 
371. 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.   
372. 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. 
373. 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. Japan – Standards and specification s 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: Not reported 
 
374. 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 evidence to justify the establishment of MRLs for boscalid. 
375. 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.7/Add.2 
Page 90  
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to FMD 34.  Japan - Measures regarding FMD 
Raised by: Argentina, European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1,  para. 46), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 
15-17) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/Notif.97.357 
Solution: Not reported 
 
376. 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 FMD 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 support 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.  
377. 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.  
99.  Japan - 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: Not reported  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 91 
 
 
  378. 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.   
379. 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. 
380. 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. 
381. 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. 
Other animal health concerns 
221. Japan – Safety insurance and quality im provement 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):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
382. 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.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 92  
 
  383. 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. 
Plant Health 
23.  Japan - 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: Not reported 
 
384. 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. 
385. 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.  Japan – Notification on amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Chile, Europ ean Communities, New Zealand, Philippines 
on behalf of ASEAN, Uruguay 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, pa ras. 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: Not reported 
 
386. 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.7/Add.2 
 Page 93 
 
 
  387. 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. 
388. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with 
Japan. 
133. Japan – Official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables 
Raised by: United States, New Zealand 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  27-30), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 
59-62), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, para s. 55-57), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, 
paras. 61-63), October 2003 (G/SPS /R/31, paras.19-20), March 2004 
(G/SPS/R/33, paras. 59-62), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 18-21), October 
2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 42-44), Ma rch 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 
61-64) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/357,  G/SPS/N/JPN/132 
Solution: Not reported 
 
389. 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.  
390. 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. 
391. In November 2002, New Zealand expressed concern with Japan's official control restrictions, 
detailed in G/SPS/GEN/357.  New Zealand requested Japan to confirm that it would not take any 
action, such as fumigation, on any pest found on imported produce if that pest was already present in Japan but not under official control as defined by the IPPC  The United States recalled its concerns over the basis and application of Japan's phytosanitary  legislation, in particular with respect to 
horticultural products that continued to face unjustified quarantine actions at Japan's ports of entry.  
Even when Japan required no domestic quarantine tr eatment for the same species of pests, the 
treatment imposed on imported produce include d fumigation which in many cases ruined the 
products.  The United States considered Japan's actions to be highly disruptive of trade.  Australia and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 94  
 
  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. 
392. 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. 
393. In April 2003, New Zealand stress ed that Japan's policy was not consistent with the relevant 
international definition in ISPM-5 of the IPPC and Supplement No.1.  Bilateral discussions between 
New Zealand and Japan continued and New Zealand requested  a policy statement  from Japan by 1 
January 2003.  To date, no such statement had been forthcoming.  Japan had still not brought its 
phytosanitary measures in line with IPPC definitions and guidelines.  The United States stated that it 
shared the concerns and frustrations of New Zeal and and continued to experience trade disruptions 
due to Japan's phytosanitary legislation and unju stified quarantine actions.  The United States had 
requested information on which pests were considered  quarantine risks but did not receive a reply.  
Australia and the European Commun ities shared the concerns of New Zealand and the United States. 
394. Japan stated that it was under no obligation to make a policy statement regarding non-
quarantine pests, however, in the interest of tran sparency, Japan would provide a statement.  Japan 
respected international rules, including IPPC guidelines, and took appropriate measures where 
necessary on the basis of its national plant protection laws.  Further examination was necessary to see 
if Japan's current measures were consistent w ith international standards and representatives from 
outside government would be invite d to review the situation.   
395. In June 2003, New Zealand indicated that it was  pleased to learn that Japan was reviewing its 
system  in order to change it.  The United Stat es stated it was disappointed with the discriminatory 
nature of Japan's measures, its failure to notif y internal regulations and the general lack of 
transparency within its system.  Australia express ed support for statements made by New Zealand and 
the United States.  Japan reported that bilatera l consultations had been  conducted and further 
examination would be necessary befo re conclusions could be drawn. 
396. 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. 
397. In March 2004, New Zealand noted that in November 2003, it presented a submission on its 
concerns as part of Japan’s review of its plan t quarantine processes and looked forward to having 
these concerns addressed in an early and trade fac ilitating manner.  The United States reported that on 
8 October 2003, the United States had presented its concerns on the classification of eleven specific species as quarantine pests to the Japanese plant protection division.  In contrast to internationally 
accepted definitions of quarantine pests, Japan's le gal definition of pests included pests that were 
already present in Japan and not subject to official  control.  As a result, imported products faced 
discriminatory treatment compared to domestic produc ts since they were subjected to fumigation for 
pests that already existed in Japan .  Japan was requested to provide clarification and information on 
actions taken to eradicate and contain the eleven specific pests and their di stribution in Japan, and on  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 95 
 
 
  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. 
398. Japan recalled that at the last Committee meeting, Japan and New Zealand had agreed to 
resolve the issue from a technical perspective and on a case-by-case basis.  As a result of bilateral 
discussions, new quarantine measures were to be intr oduced in May 2004, based on trials of orchard 
control for Fuller Rose Weevil on kiwifruit.  Furthe rmore, quarantine trials for reducing fumigation 
on lettuce from the United States were conducted from July 2003 to March 2004 and the results were 
under evaluation.  Japan had received requests for 39 species of pests from New Zealand and 11 
species from the United States to be designated as non- quarantine pests.  Members' concerns on the 
inconsistency of Japan’s plant h ealth laws with international st andards were under review.  The 
consultative group on plant quarantine established by Japan's plant quarantine authorities had held 
four meetings but experienced a delay in comp iling its recommendations.  The consultative group 
meetings would be reactivated to work on reco mmendations which would be considered by plant 
quarantine authorities for further action. 
399. 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.   
400. The United States recalled that it had provided an update at the last Committee meeting on 
Japan's policy for requiring fumigation for non-qu arantine pests, even when these pests were 
commonly found in Japan.  Japan's written response to  the US request on the eleven pests recognized 
the necessity of taking into account the relevant standards of the IPPC when conducting pest risk 
assessments (PRAs), was welcomed.  ISPM 2, "Guidelin es for Pest  Risk Assessment", indicated that 
the PRA process should end when, in the course of th e analysis, a potential quarantine pest had been 
identified as present and not subject to official controls.  The European Communities shared the 
concerns of New Zealand and the United States.   
401. 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.   
402. In October 2004, New Zealand asked Japan whet her it had adopted the necessary procedures 
to expand its non-quarantine pest list to include th ose pests already present in Japan that were not 
under official control as defined by the IPPC.  The United States commented that they looked forward 
to reviewing the report on Japan’s plant quarantine regime at the end of the year.  The European 
Communities expressed support for the statements made by New Zealand and the United States and urged Japan to align its phytosanitary measures with IPPC definitions and guidelines.    Japan replied 
that Members would be notified of the changes in its legislation in December 2004 and amendments 
would be made no later than March 2005. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 96  
 
  403. 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. 
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).  Co mments from Members had been accepted for 60 
days between 4 January and 4 March 2005.  Dome stic comments had been collected between 27 
December 2004 and 25 February 2005.  These co mments were presently under examination by the 
plant quarantine authorities of Japan and it woul d take approximately one  month to amend the 
relevant regulations, if approved.   
162. Japan – 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: Not reported 
 
404. 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. 
405. Japan stated that it would transmit the United St ates' concern to its authorities and respond in 
due course. 
223. Japan - Import requirements for Indian mangoes 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 37-38) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
406. 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.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 97 
 
 
  407. 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.  Japan and Korea - 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: Not reported 
 
408. 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. 
173. Japan - 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: Not reported 
 
409. 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. 
410. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 98  
 
  224. Japan - Restrictions on EC exports of plant and animal products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Brazil 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 24-25), October 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 74-75) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
411. 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.   
412. Other issues of concerns to th e European Communities included, inter alia , Japan's inspection 
procedures in the exporting country, phytosanitary im port regulations, and a sy stem of zero-tolerance 
for all pests not included in Japan's list of non-qu arantine organisms.  With regard to the animal 
sector, disease-free status recognition and health impor t certification were difficult.  The European 
Communities invited Japan to review its internal administrative SPS procedures to make them more 
efficient and transparent.  Brazil also expressed concerns regarding Japanese approval procedures for 
plant varieties.  
413. 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. 
414. In February 2006, the European Communities re ported that some progress had been made in 
consultations between Japan and some EC member St ates.  Japan noted that, risk assessments based 
on scientific evidence had been carried out.  Wh ere the assessments showed that the proposed 
measure met Japan’s appropriate level of protectio n, import bans had been lifted or SPS measures 
eased.  The content and amount of data necessary for the risk assessment differed among species and 
according to regional conditions, so the duration of the assessment varied accordingly.  If the 
European Communities could be more specific about their concerns, Japan would try to address these 
through bilateral consultations.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 99 
 
 
  REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
Food Safety 
179. Korea – Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada European Communities, New Zeal and, , Philippines 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, par as. 11-14), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 
40-42), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras.  46-48), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 47-50), March 2005 (G/SPS/ R/36/Rev.1, paras. 71-73) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/123, G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 
Solution: Not reported 
 
415. 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. 
416. Korea responded that it had amended the regul ations to meet its appropriate level of 
protection and noted that there were no comments on the issue when the SPS notification was 
circulated at the beginning of the year.  Technical de velopments had reduced the cost of testing and as 
such Korea planned to considerably reduce the t esting fees.  The United States replied that it had 
submitted comments on Korea's notification in Marc h and had two meetings in September with 
Korean officials regarding this issue. 
417. 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. 
418. In June 2004, the United States commented that  under Korea's import inspection programme, 
importers would bear the cost of the testing fees, now estimated at US$1-2,000 each.  While the United States recognized Korea's attempts to mo dify their requirements through the issuance of 
notifications G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 in 2004, the proposed fee for testing would still be twice as large as that proposed by Korea's Food and Drug Administration.  Although the number of chemicals 
subject to mandatory testing had been reduced fro m 196 to 47, domestic producers were still exempt 
from the mandatory testing requirement.  Thus, Ko rea's import inspection pr ogram was inconsistent 
with national treatment provisions of the WTO.  D espite bilateral discussions over the past year, the 
United States perceived insufficient progress on this issue and hoped for more significant progress in the future. Australia, Canada and the European  Communities expressed similar concerns. Korea 
emphasized that both the testing fees and the numbe r of agricultural chemicals for which mandatory G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 100  
 
  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.   
419. 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. 
420. Korea stated that it would take some time to  revise the relevant legislation needed to 
implement the measures notified in G/SPS/N/KO R/154 and 155.  The testing fee had been 
substantially reduced and was now one-third the cost of the previous fee.  However, the fee was still 
two times higher than what was proposed in Oc tober 2003 because the domestic industry was 
concerned that the proposed testing fee was not sufficient to compensate for testing requirements 
needed to ensure the safety of foods.  Testing fees would be adjusted in th e future when the need 
arose.  Korea applied strict guidelines to domestic products with respect to the use of agro-chemicals 
and did not discriminate between imported and domesti cally produced products.   Korea took note of 
the concerns of the United States, particularly with reference to Annex C of the SPS Agreement. 
421. 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. 
422. Korea noted that the revised regulation to implem ent this measure would come into effect this 
year.  The proposed testing fee had been review ed following a public hearing process.  Some 
interested groups had expressed the view that the proposed testing fee would not be enough to 
compensate the cost of the testing.  Korea had carefully reviewed the various opinions and had 
decided on the level of the testing fee.  That level was two times higher than the proposed one, yet 
about one fourth the level initially proposed.  If n ecessary, the testing fee would be adjusted in the 
future.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 101 
 
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to FMD 65.  Korea – 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: Not reported 
 
423. 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. 
174. Korea – 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: Not reported 
 
424. 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. 
425. Korea stated that it was acting in line with th e transparency requirements and would continue 
to do so. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 102  
 
  MEXICO 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Issues related to FMD 
 
67.  Mexico - 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: Not reported 
 
426. 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. Mexico – 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: Not reported 
 
427. 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. 
428. 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. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 103 
 
 
  PANAMA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA  
Food Safety 83.  Panama - Restrictions on milk powder imports 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, par as. 15-16), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 
135) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/220 
Solution: Not reported 
 
429. 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 consumption 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. 
430. 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 and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to FMD 
187. Panama – FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil, Costa Rica 
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras.  16-17), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 
56-57), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev. 1, paras. 50-51), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras 173-174), October 2005/February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 83-87) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution:  Not reported 
 
431. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 104  
 
  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. 
432. In October 2004, Argentina informed the Committee that Argentina had received positive 
news on the issue of Panama’s restrictions on da iry products and was hopeful of a resolution by the 
next Committee meeting.  Panama stated that bilatera l consultations were held with Argentina prior to 
the Committee meeting and was optim istic of resolving the issue. 
433. In March 2005,  Argentina recalled that in October 2004, a bilateral agreement had been 
negotiated with Panama whereby officials from Pana ma would carry out a visit to establish the safety 
of Argentina's milk products.  The visit had not yet taken place and Argentina dairy products 
continued to be prevented from entering Panama.   
434. 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. 
435. 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. 
436. 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.   
437. 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. 
438. 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. 
439. 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.7/Add.2 
 Page 105 
 
 
  Other animal health concerns 
149. Panama - Restrictions on food products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G /SPS/R/28, paras. 195-196) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution:  Not reported 
440. 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.  
214. Panama - Inspection regime for f ood processing establishments 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 25-27),  
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/PAN/1, G/SPS/N/PAN/28 , G/SPS/N/PAN/37, 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
441. 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. 
442. 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. 
226. Panama - Inspection regime for agricultural products  
Raised by: Costa Rica 
Supported by: Argentina, Canada, Colomb ia, European Communities, United States 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 39-41) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/PAN/43, G/SPS/GEN/582 
Solution: Not reported G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 106  
 
  443. In June 2005, Costa Rica noted that, as de veloped in document G/SPS/GEN/582, Panama's 
new inspection system, notified in April 2005 as G/SPS/N/PAN/43, posed problems to several Costa Rican firms trying to export tomato  paste, milk and animal products to Panama.  Panama had changed 
its rules regarding the inspection of plants without prior notification to the WTO and provision of an adaptation period.  Although Costa Rican enterpri ses already had certifications from the Panama's 
Ministry of Health for exports of sweetened milk  and animal products to Panama, now according to 
the new rules they also had to undergo inspection by  the Ministry of Agriculture.  Costa Rica had 
unsuccessfully requested Panama to avoid the second in spection.  Costa Rica had also requested that 
Panama provide the risk assessment and scientific justification supporting this new requirement. 
444. Argentina, Canada, Colombia, the European  Communities and the United States reported 
experiencing similar difficulties accessing the Panama nian market.  Argentina had sanitary difficulties 
in relation to FMD and bureaucratic difficulties whic h did not seem to be designed to protect animal 
health in Panama (see Panama- FMD restrictions ).  The European Communities had suddenly been 
faced with a new Panamanian health legislation re ferring, firstly, to a system which seemed to link 
obtaining an import licence for Panama to a paym ent and, secondly, to an inspection system which 
would be paid for by the exporting country.  The United States recalled an is sue raised at the March 
meeting of the Committee concerning the expansion of Panama's inspection programme to most food 
processing establishments and the non notification of  this significant change in Panama's import 
regime.  Canada had been experiencing problems with Panama's requirement for plant-by-plant 
approvals for meat exports and the recent changes to Panama's inspection regime.  
445. Panama reminded the Committee that it was the fi rst time that this issue of plant inspection 
was raised by Costa Rica before the SPS Committee and explained that  he would convey Costa Rica's 
comments to the competent author ities.  Panama's inspection re gime followed the fundamental 
principles of the SPS Agreement and of OIE and IPPC standards.  Risk assessment methods 
comprised two parts:  the protection of Panama's he alth status and the functioning of the Ministry of 
Agriculture.  The excellent quality of Panama's ex ports of cattle and dair y products was due to a 
stringent application of the SPS measures domestical ly and to imports.  Because of its geographical 
situation as a hub for world trade, Panama was expo sed to a greater risk of introduction of pest and 
animal diseases and therefore had to undertake a ri sk assessment prior to authorizing imports from 
countries affected by exotic diseases.  The risk assessment undertaken by the Panamanian authorities 
would shortly be given to the Costa Rican delegation. 
Other Concerns 
118. Panama - Import licenses for agricultural products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para.26) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
446. Canada stated that high level meetings were underway regardi ng the automaticity of Panama's 
import licensing procedures.  Panama stated that Ca nada's concerns were be ing considered by the 
appropriate authorities. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 107 
 
 
  POLAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND4 
Plant Health 25.  Poland – Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, pa ras. 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: Not reported 
 
447. 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 consultations had focussed on technical aspects of pest risk 
analysis, and both parties had agreed to continue the discussions. 
448. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with 
Poland. 
ROMANIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA  
Food Safety 134. Romania – 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: Not reported 
 
449. 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 
                                                      
4 The status of this concern is being reviewed in the light of Poland's membership in the European 
Communities as of 1 May 2004. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 108  
 
  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. 
450. Romania argued that the measure in question was a result of its harmonization with the  
acquis communautaire  of the European Union, and was neces sary 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. 
SOUTH AFRICA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
43.  South Africa - Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from EC member States 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.  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: Not reported 
451. 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. 
452. 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.7/Add.2 
 Page 109 
 
 
  Concerns related to FMD 
 
135. South Africa – Restrictions on beef and pork 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, par as 19-20), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 
176) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Imports of meat and pork from Br azilian regions free of FMD authorized.  
Problems remaining concerning administrative procedures for meat 
products. 
 453. Brazil stated that in February 2002, South Africa had suspended imports of beef and pork 
from Brazil, because FMD vaccination was practised th ere.  South Africa's import ban was not based 
on the OIE standards nor on scientific evidence or risk 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 products , but were expected to be resolved soon.  
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
(CHINESE TAIPEI) 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 227. Chinese Taipei - BSE-related import restrictions on non-ruminant products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 30-32) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
454. In June 2005, the United States raised concer ns regarding the BSE-related import prohibition 
imposed by Chinese Taipei on non-ruminant rende red meals except fishmeal, and all spray-dried 
animal products except dairy products  and certain porcine products made  in specified plants.  For over 
five years, the United States had been providing signi ficant scientific information to the animal health 
authorities of Chinese Taipei to allow the resumption of this trade.  Chinese Taipei had not provided 
any scientific justification exceeding the relevant in ternational standards.  Bilateral discussions just 
prior to the meeting gave hope of find ing a mutually satisfactory solution.  
455. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 110  
 
  specifically allowed trade of beef products derive d from deboned skeletal muscle meat from animals 
under 30 months of age. 
456. 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. Chinese Taipei - Policies regarding qua rantine 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: Not reported 
 
457. 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. 
458. 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. 
THAILAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THAILAND   
Food Safety 
215. Thailand - Regulation 11 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: New Zealand, Japan 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 42-44), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 45-47) , October 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 59-60) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/THA/116 and addenda 1-5 
Solution: Not reported  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 111 
 
 
  459. In March 2005, the United States observed th at Thailand had notified Public Health 
Regulation N° 11 to be implemented in December 2004 (G/SPS/N/THA/116).  In response to extensive comments, Thailand had de layed implementation to March 2005 
(G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add.1), but had not addressed the subs tantive issues raised by the United States.  
Many US fresh food products had been categorized in that Regulation as high risk with no scientific 
basis.  As a result, burdensome and costly tes ting and certification of compliance with pathogen 
requirements, and pesticides and heavy metals resi due levels were now requi red for US exports to 
enter the market.  The United States urged Thaila nd to suspend implementation of the Regulation 
until a science-based risk assessment for each  product affected had been conducted. 
460. 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 . 
461. 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. 
462. 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. 
463. Japan observed that a national strategic plan on food, such as Rule 11, aimed at strengthening 
the control measures for the safety and quality of domestic and imported food, should be based on a 
science-based risk assessment and the working princi ples for risk analysis applied by the Codex 
Alimentarius.  In order to a void unjustified trade barriers, risk management should ensure 
transparency and consistency in the decisi on-making process in all cases.  Japan requested 
information about the relationship between the pr oposed regulation and the related international 
standards. 
464. Thailand replied that the food standards that  would be applied throughout the country 
complied with the relevant international standards.   Requiring a health certificate was the best option 
to alleviate the burden on importers at the borde r and was in compliance with Codex standards.  
Thailand had addressed most of the comments re ceived from Members.  Some food standards 
inconsistent with the Codex had been withdrawn,  pending further science-based evaluation.  Thailand 
notified additional modifications on 12 July 2005 (G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add.4) and cancelled its 
notification on 12 January 2006 (G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add. 5) in order ot undertake a complete review 
of Rule 11. 
465. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 112  
 
  466. Thailand clarified that, on the basis of comments by some Members, the requirements for a 
food health certificate had been withdrawn and th e current review focussed on high risk food 
products.  This review would be based on scientific  risk assessment.  Thailand was convinced that 
certifying healthy food on the basis of internatio nal standards was a way of facilitating trade.  
Thailand was also willing to recognize the equivalence of other measures. on the basis of international 
guidelines. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to avian influenza 234. Thailand - Suspension of importatio n of live poultry and poultry carcasses  
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005/Februar y 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 88-89) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
467. In February 2006, Mexico requested Thailand to conclude the emergency measures which had 
led to the temporary suspension of imports of  live poultry and poultry carcasses from the Mexican 
state of Durango.  The strain of avian influenza (A I) detected in the Mexican poultry products (H5N2) 
was low pathogenic.  In accordance with the OIE,  prior to implementing such measures, Thailand 
should have demonstrated that it was free of the low pathogenic strain at issue and that it had put in 
place a monitoring programmes able to detect this s ubtype despite the absence of clinical symptoms.  
Mexico's programme for AI control and eradication,  which had been in force for ten years, ensured 
the eradication of all subtypes of AI.  The st ate of Durango had complied with all the OIE 
requirements to regain a disease-free status in th e case of a low pathogenic AI infection and was AI-
free for all subtypes.  Thailand should therefore remove its temporary restrictions. 
468. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 113 
 
 
   
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 
151. Trinidad and Tobago - Restrictions on im ports of pork sausages and other pork 
products 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, pa ras. 32-34), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29 paras. 
65-66), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, par as. 45-46), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, 
paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
469. 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 y ears 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.. 
470. 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. 
471. 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 was 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 ma tter would be fully resolved at the time.   
472. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 114  
 
  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. 
473. 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 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 
 
48.  Turkey – Import ban on livestock 
Raised by: United States, Hungary 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities, New Zealand, Uruguay 
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/GEN265 
Solution: The United States reported in July 2001 that its concerns were resolved.  
Hungary's concerns are outstanding. 
 474. 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 
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. 
475. 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.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 115 
 
 
  476. 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. 
477. 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.  
478. 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 STATES  
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES  
Food Safety 58.  United States - Notification on refrigeration and 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: Not reported 
 
479. 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 3000 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 116  
 
  152. United States – 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: Not reported 
 
480. 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 obl igations under the SPS Agreement.   
481. The United States noted that FDA sampling of imported produce found that samples of 
cantaloupe melons from most growing regions in Me xico tested positive for salmonella. The samples 
had been collected both in the fall/winter and spri ng/summer seasons, and it appeared that unsanitary 
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 looked forward to its early implementation.  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
44.  United States – 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: Not reported 
 
482. 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 
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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 117 
 
 
  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. 
483. 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 pr ovided 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. 
137. United States – 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: Not reported 
 
484. 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. Bilateral 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.  
485. 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. 
189. United States – 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: Not reported 
 
486. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 118  
 
  complied with the requirements to be considered free of BSE.  The United States was requested to 
clarify this matter. 
487. The United States explained that the USDA had instituted a number of  interim measures on 
12 January 2004 after the announc ement of a presumptive case of BSE in Washington State on 23 
December 2003.  Under the US regulatory system, in terim final rules were en forced 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. United States – US rule on materials derived from 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: Not reported 
 
488. Argentina noted that notification 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 
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. 
489. 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 nonambulatory 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 exem ption 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 119 
 
 
  490. 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.  
Other animal health concerns 
7.  United States - 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: Not reported 
 
491. 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 fu lfil the obligation of the United States under the SPS 
Agreement, in particular Article 5.2 on risk assessment. 
120. United States – 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: Not reported 
 
492. 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 understa nding that a final rule was imminent.   
493. 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 had 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.7/Add.2 
Page 120  
 
  had legitimate scientific concerns related to cl assical swine fever in the European Communities 
following recent outbreaks in Germany, Spain and Luxembourg. 
494. 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. 
495. 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 recognised that certain areas of the European Communities were 
disease free.  On 16 October 2003, APHIS ruled that  East Anglia, in the United Kingdom, was disease 
free and was continuing its evaluation of the status of other EC member States.  Outbreaks of both 
classical swine fever and FMD in France, Spain and Luxembourg had complicated and delayed the response to the regionalization request. 
Plant Health 
37.  United States - 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: Not reported 
496. 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 
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.  United States – Interim rule affecting solid wood packaging material 
Raised by: none; Hong Kong, China is affected 
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: Not reported 
497. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 121 
 
 
  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 welcome until 22 Ma rch 1999.  The European Communities indicated 
that it had been monitoring similar problems, and woul d provide more information at a later date.  In 
October 2001, Hong Kong, China reported th at no new developments had occurred. 
121. United States – 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: Not reported 
 
498. 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.  
499. In June 2002 the European Communities reporte d 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. 
153. United States – Restrictions on imports of Chinese potted plants in growing medium 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,  paras. 43-45); March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras. 21-22) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/431 and addendum 
Solution: Not reported 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 122  
 
  500. China indicated that US prohibitions on the importation of Chinese penjing in growing 
medium continued almost six years after the risk anal ysis had been finished and the protocol had been 
signed.  The United States had relied on the excuse  of domestic legal procedures and the need to 
coordinate work between the relevant government  agencies to delay solving the problem.  China 
requested the United States to notify its work procedures concerning the removal of measures 
prohibiting imports of plants and pl ant products in compliance with th e transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement.  China failed to understand why th e United States had proposed to solve only the 
problem of the importation of one of the types of  penjing plants in growing medium, instead of 
considering the five types for which the risk analysis had been completed.  The European 
Communities supported the concerns raised by Chin a and noted that they had run into the same 
difficulties with other varieties of potted plants.  The European Communities urged the United States 
to find a rapid solution to the problem. 
501. The United States noted that the issue of penjing in growing medium had been the subject of 
extensive discussions with China.  The United States  had been working actively to evaluate China's 
proposed importation, but the importation of plants in growing medium was more complicated from a 
risk mitigation perspective than importation of bare  root plants.  While examination of bare root 
plants could detect certain pests or disease problem s, inspection of potted plants necessarily involved 
the removal of the plant from the pot and the gr owing medium, and could damage the plant and 
reduce its commercial value.  Although the assessmen t of the risk to plant health posed by the 
importation of the five species of penjing was essen tially concluded, other risks needed to be 
evaluated before determination if the importa tion presented an acceptable risk.  US regulatory 
requirements for imported plants and growing medium  reflected the need to  prevent the introduction 
of pests and disease that could seriously undermin e or compromise native ecosystems, as well as 
cultivated plants, and this work was ongoing.  Th e 1997 protocol between the United States and China 
reflected agreement on the technical issues rela ting to production, inspection, and quarantine 
requirements for Chinese penjing that were necess ary but not sufficient conditions for imports to 
occur.  The protocol could not take effect until the risk assessments had been completed, and the 
necessary regulatory and notification processes had run their course.  The United States 
acknowledged the importance that China attached to this issue, and indicated their commitment to 
reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution as soon as possible. 
502. In March 2004, China stated that the US rule on the importation of artificially dwarfed plants 
in growing media from China was unnecessary and not viable given China's production system.  
China's proposed measures were rejected by the  United States.  The United States reported that the 
risk analysis for five varieties of penjing was comp leted.  On 16 January 2004, a final rule authorizing 
the importation of five varieties of Chinese origin penjing plants in approve d growing media had been 
published and notified as G/SPS/N/USA/431/Add1.  This  rule built upon an existing regulation that 
was first published in August 2002 and notified as G/SPS/N/USA/431.  The 2002 rule remains 
applicable and required high risk artificially dwa rfed plants, including penjing, to be produced in 
phytosanitary secure conditions for two years prior to export.  However, plants less than two years in 
age were not subject to the two-year quarantine re quirement due to a lower risk profile.  This new 
regulation provided China with additional market opportunities and the United States would continue 
bilateral discussions with China.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 123 
 
 
  182. United States – Implementation of the in ternational standard for phytosanitary 
measures on wood packaging (ISPM 15) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Chile 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 50-51) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/705 
Solution: Not reported5 
 
503. Argentina agreed that wood packaging could sp read pests, however, the US measures could 
have a negative impact on Argentin a's exports.  The US notification did not provide sufficient time for 
implementing the measures needed for compliance.   For instance, Argen tina needed sufficient 
resources and time to establish the required treatme nt centres for wood packaging materials.  Chile 
supported the statement made by Argentina. 
504. The United States stated that it had received 54 comments from seven other Members on its 
proposed measure and that APHIS was in the pro cess of evaluating these comments to determine how 
to take them into account.  The January implem entation date would be postponed and the measure 
would be phased in over time.  The United States encouraged other Members to adopt ISPM 15 as a 
means of controlling the spread of raw wood pests. 
216. United States - Restrictions on Ya pears imports 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 37-39) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
505. In March 2005, China reported that, at the end of 2003, the US Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) had suspended imports of  Ya pears from China on the grounds that new 
species of the fungus Alternaria sp . had been found.  The Chin ese Government had undertaken 
cooperative studies with the United States and finall y obtained a result satisfactory to both Chinese 
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. 
506. 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. 
507. The United States clarified that imports of Ya pears from China were suspended in December 
2003 due to repeated detections of the exotic fungus Alternaria sp .and that imports of these pears had 
already been suspended in previous years for a similar problem. In May 2004, China had been 
provided with a document describing the status of this organism as a pest of quarantine significance 
and the United States had been working closely with China to develop conditions that would allow the 
reopening of the market.  After several bilate ral discussions, agreement had been reached in 
November 2004 on a work plan stipulating that Chin ese scientists would cooperate with US scientists 
                                                      
5 At the March 2006 meeting of the SPS Committee Argentina reported that this trade concern had 
been resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 124  
 
  to develop possible measures to mitigate the fungus.  A protocol had been agreed in December 2004 
to enable a test shipment of Ya pears to be imported for research purposes into the United States to 
evaluate the various mitigation measures..  Unfortunat ely, the collaborative rese arch showed that even 
with all the mitigation measures in place, the in festation rate still significantly exceeded the one 
specified in the work plan of November 2004.  Alternaria sp . was a newly identified species not 
known to exist in the United States, and a better understanding of this or ganism was necessary to 
develop appropriate mitigation measures.  The Un ited States would continue work with China to 
identify measures to reduce the level of infestation to  an acceptable level so that the market might be 
reopened. 
228. United States - Import procedures for fruits and vegetables 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 21-23) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
508. In June 2005, the European Communities observe d that EC exports of fruits and vegetables 
were experiencing lengthy inspection procedures that because of the highly perishable nature of the 
products, resulted in commercial losses.  The US  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) also required that only US -produced pesticides be used duri ng cultivation, some of which 
were not permitted within the European Commun ities.  The European Co mmunities requested the 
United States to accept the use of equivalent pesticid es.  Certain insects used to protect crops in the 
European Communities were not allowed entry into th e United States.  Other concerns included, inter 
alia, cold treatment import requirements and pre-clearance inspection procedures.  
509. Argentina described the case of markets not attrac tive enough for the private sector to register 
a pesticide, so that no specific limit was fixed for the level of residues of this pesticide.  On sanitary 
grounds, the default limit was zero or close to zer o, which equalled prohib iting the products.  The 
maximum limits established by Codex should be used by default in such cases. 
510. 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.7/Add.2 
 Page 125 
 
 
  URUGUAY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY URUGUAY  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns Related to TSEs 
 
154. Uruguay – Risk assessment on  BSE 
Raised by: United States, Canada 
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. 
511. 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. 
512. 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. 
513. 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 8 per cent of its GDP.  Since 1996, a nu mber 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. 
In September 2004, Canada reported that the issu e of Uruguay's BSE measures had been resolved 
with Uruguay. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 126  
 
  OTHER CONCERNS 
Food Safety 63. Certain Members - Information on dioxin 
Raised by: None, information provided by the 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: Not reported 
514. 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 countries had responded by imposing trade restrictions.  The European Communities 
stressed that there was no longer any justification for maintaining import bans, regretting that several 
countries had not notified their bans.  The Europ ean Communities reserved its right to take action 
with regard to unjustified trade barriers. 
515. 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. 
516. 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 exposed  without harm.  Codex reported that at the July 
1999 meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Co mmission, 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. 
517. 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. 
518. 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.7/Add.2 
 Page 127 
 
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to FMD 103. Certain Members – 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 
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. 
 519. 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 been  replaced by other control instruments.   
520. 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.   
521. 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. 
522. 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. 
523. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 128  
 
  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.   
524. 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 
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.  
525. 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. 
526. 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. 
527. 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. 
528. In March 2004, Argentina informed the Secretar iat that the issue had been resolved with 
respect to Argentina's concerns. 
Concerns related to TSE  
193. Certain Members – General import restrictions due to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Canada, United States 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras.  37-38), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para.85-
86), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 75-76) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Partially resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 129 
 
 
   
529. In June 2004, the European Communities raised concerns about unjustifie d import restrictions 
on EC exports due to conc erns about BSE.  To sa tisfy consumer demands, the European Communities 
had adopted comprehensive measures to address risk s relating to BSE.  These measures applied both 
to products intended for consumption within the European Communities, and to those destined for 
export.  The system of geographical assessment us ed in the European Co mmunities had successfully 
identified countries in which the disease was still pr esent.  The European Communities called on other 
countries to replace import bans, which exceeded OIE recommendations and yet did not fully address 
potential internal risks, with specific import require ments in accordance with OIE standards.  Many 
products, such as semen, embryos and dairy products could be traded with predefined guarantees.  
Members were urged to take into  consideration OIE recommendations for international trade and to 
stop discriminating among Members with similar BSE conditions. 
530. Canada recalled that at its last meeting the OIE had reconfirmed that some products, such as 
semen, embryos, hides, and milk, did not contribute to  the transmission of BSE.  Hence the imports of 
these types of products did not provide a potentia l pathway for introduction of the disease.   
531. In October 2004, the European Communities informed the Committe e that several WTO 
Members had reviewed their bans on EC beef and small bovine ruminant products and replaced them 
with specific requirements in accordance with OIE standards.  The European Communities urged all 
those Members who had not yet done so to align thei r regulations in accordance with OIE standards.  
The United States noted that some Members were reviewing their import restrictions on US beef and also urged all those Members who had not done so to align their regulations in accordance with OIE 
standards. 
532. In June 2005, the European Communities reporte d that the number of countries that had lifted 
their respective bans on EC bovines and bovine pro ducts in accordance with OIE standards had been 
regularly growing, including also non-Members of the WTO.  According to the revised BSE chapter of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, many b ovine derivate products, including deboned skeletal 
muscle and blood products, could be safely traded  regardless of the BSE status of the exporting 
country.  The European Communities invited the remaining WTO Members to replace their import 
bans with specific import requirements in accordance with OIE standards.   
Concerns related to avian influenza 
124. Certain Members – 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: Not reported 
 
533. 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 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 130  
 
  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.  
534. 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. 
Other animal health concerns 
 
190. Certain Members - Regionalization and recognition of animal disease free status 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, para. 52) , June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 35-36), 
October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 87), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 52-54) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Several WTO members removed re strictions on some EC member States 
 
535. 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 
536. In June 2004, the European Communities stated  that some WTO Members failed to recognize 
that all EC member States were officially free of FMD according to the OIE criteria.  No new 
outbreaks of FMD had been recorded in the terr itory of the European Communities since 2002. The 
European Communities considered the epidemic to be under control and the disease completely 
eradicated.  According to the OIE rules, countries co uld recover free status thre e months after the last 
identified case when a stamping out policy and serologi cal surveillance were applied.  There was no 
scientific justification for restrictive measures on EC products due to FMD.   
537. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 131 
 
 
  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.  
538. In October 2004,  the European Communities r ecalled that the European Communities had on 
previous occasions requested Members to adhere to the principles of regionalization and to recognize 
the disease-free status of EC member States.  Several Members had now removed their restrictions on some EC member States.  The European Comm unities would provide all necessary information to 
demonstrate its disease-free status to any WTO Member. 
539. In March 2005, the European Communities again drew attention to the fact that some WTO 
Members continued to apply unjustified restrictions on EC exports of animal products despite the fact 
that the whole EC territory was officially free of FMD.  No new outbreaks of  FMD had been recorded 
in the territory of the European Communities since 2002 and FMD was completely eradicated.  
Austria had last experienced an FMD outbreak in 1981 and some WTO Members still refused to 
recognize it as free from FMD. resulting in a comple te ban on imports of animal products from this 
country.  The European Communities urged all Me mbers to respect the obligations of the SPS 
Agreement with regard to recognition of disease-free status and to remove all unjustified import restrictions. 
540. The European Communities was in the position to demonstrate to importing WTO Members 
which regions of the European Communities could safely export live pigs, pork meat and pork meat 
products and which regions could not.  Spain was o fficially free from classical swine fever since July 
2002, according to international standards.  Howe ver some WTO Members continued to apply a ban 
on imports of pork meat products from Spain.  Acco rding to Article 2 of the SPS Agreement, there 
was no scientific justification to ban imports of products from a country where a disease did not exist.  The European Communities urged all Members to r espect the obligations of the SPS Agreement with 
regard to the recognition of disease free status for classical swine fever and to remove all related 
unjustified import restrictions on live pigs, pork me at and pork meat products not only from Spain but 
from all other EC member States free of the disease. 
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: Not reported 
 
541. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
Page 132  
 
  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, pa ras. 135-137), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
para.151) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/435 
Solution: Not reported 
 
542. 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.  
543. 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. 
544. Canada commented that the standard was not ne w as it had been adopted by the IPPC in June 
2002.  Canada had planned to implement the standa rd in June 2003 but  delayed its implementation 
until January 2004 to give Members sufficient time to adapt wood treatment processes.  Canada would provide a transition period and recommended that the issue be discussed under Agenda 
Item 7(a) regarding the use of international standards. 
545. 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. Certain Members - 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):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
546. 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 
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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.2 
 Page 133 
 
 
  547. 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. 
__________