WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/207 
15 September 2006 
 (06-4411) 
Committee on Sanitaryand Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
  
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 18  
OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION OF THE  
PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ("CHINA") 
 
Questions from the United States to China concerning 
 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
Restrictions on trade in beef 
 
1. China continues to impose BSE-related restricti ons on imports of beef and beef products from 
the United States.  These restrictions have raised  serious questions as to how China believes it is 
satisfying its obligations under the Agreement on th e Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures (SPS Agreement), taking into account the re levant international standards governing beef 
trade.  In this area, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE ) provides guidelines for 
conditions under which the full range  of beef and beef products are tradeable regardless of the BSE 
status of a country, as long as specified risk materi als (SRM) appropriate to the risk category of the 
country are hygienically removed.  Depending on the BSE category of a country ("undetermined risk" 
"controlled risk" or "negligible risk"), more or less  SRM must be removed and/or the age from which 
SRMs must be removed varies.  The United States requires US processing facilities to remove SRMs 
in accordance with OIE guidelines, and it has presente d evidence to China showing that it qualifies, at 
a minimum, for the "controlled risk" BSE category. 
2. The steps taken by the United States include:  (a) the Enhanced Surveillance Program, which 
fully satisfies the OIE's Type A standard;  (b) effec tive controls over the feeding of ruminant origin 
meat and bone meal since August 1997;  and (c) the capability to perform thorough epidemiological 
investigations of all BSE cases.  As a result, the United States has resumed trade for the full range of 
beef products with many of its trading partners.  It is similarly reasonable that China should grant 
access to the full range of OIE-sanctioned products from the United States, including bone-in beef, boneless beef, variety meats, offals and processed products. 
3. The United States remains frustrated that Chin a has not adhered more closely to science-
based principles contained in the OIE guidelin es when making BSE-related regulatory decisions 
regarding imports of US-origin beef and beef produc ts.  Recently, China’s General Administration of 
Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantin e (AQSIQ) issued Announcement No. 89 (2006), 
Inspection and Quarantine Requirements on Conditional Resumption of Boneless Beef Imports from the United States (published on AQSIQ’s website on 31 July 2006), which proposes the importation 
of a very limited scope of US-origin beef and beef products.  This announcement does not even 
permit the importation of the range of beef and beef products deemed tradeable under OIE guidelines 
for the "undetermined risk" category for BSE purposes.   
(a) Has China performed a risk assessment releva nt to its BSE-related restrictions on 
imports of beef and beef products from the United States?  Please explain how the G/SPS/W/207 
Page 2  
 
  risk assessment supports the measure that Ch ina is applying to US beef and beef 
products. 
(b) If China has not performed the relevant risk  assessment, can China at least provide 
the science-based rationale for maintaining its BSE-related import restrictions against US-origin beef and beef products? 
BSE-related restrictions on other products  
 
4. China continues to impose a multitude of add itional BSE-related import restrictions on 
protein-free tallow.  The OIE’s BSE chapter specifies that protein-free tallow should be traded 
regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country.   However, China continues to insist that the 
United States certify that the tallow not be pro cessed from certain SRMs, and that certain tallow 
processing methods commonly used in the United Stat es be prohibited.  Additionally, China insists 
that the United States certify that the materials us ed to produce tallow were not sourced from farms 
where a BSE-positive animal has been detected.  Ch ina’s position is not aligned with OIE guidelines 
and has effectively blocked imports of US-origin protein-free tallow.  The United States has provided 
China with several quantitative ri sk assessments that demonstrat e that any BSE-related risks 
associated with protein-free tallow are too small to calculate.   
(a) Has China performed a risk assessment releva nt to its BSE-related restrictions on 
imports of protein-free tallow from the United States?  Please explain how the risk assessment supports the measure that China is applying to US protein-free tallow. 
(b) If China has not performed the relevant risk  assessment, can China at least provide 
the science-based rationale for maintaining its BSE-related import restrictions against 
US-origin protein-free tallow? 
Pathogen standards  
 
5. The United States is concerned that China con tinues to enforce a zero-tolerance requirement 
for certain pathogens (e.g., salmonella) on meat  and poultry products (see Standardization 
Administration of China (SAC) and AQSIQ National Standard on Fresh and Frozen Poultry Products 
(GB16869-2005), effective 1 January 2006), which appears to be inconsistent with Codex 
Alimentarius (Codex) guidelines.  The relevant  Codex guidelines, set forth in CAC/GL21–1997, 
Principles for the establishment and application of microbiological criteria for foods, Chapter 4.1, 
provide: 
A microbiological criterion should be established and applied only where there is a definite 
need and where its application is practical.  Such need is demonstrated, for example, by 
epidemiological evidence that the food under cons ideration may represent a public health risk 
and that a criterion is meaningful for consumer protection, or as the result of a risk assessment.  The criterion should be technically  attainable by applying Good Manufacturing 
Practices. 
 In the case of pathogens like salmonella, the zer o-tolerance requirement enforced by China on 
imported products is not technically  attainable.  The United States is also concerned because the zero-
tolerance requirement applicable to imports does not appear to be enforced against domestic products.  
China has acknowledged the need to revise domes tic regulatory controls in this area.   
 
(a) Please explain whether China has taken Codex criteria into account in the 
development of its existing zero-tolera nce requirement for certain pathogens.  G/SPS/W/207 
 Page 3 
 
 
   
(b) Does China apply its zero-tolerance requir ement to domestically produced meat and 
poultry products?  If not, please explain how China’s ongoing review of domestic 
regulatory controls will ensure conformity w ith its obligations under Article 2.3 of the 
SPS Agreement. 
(c) Please explain how China would revise a national standard such as GB16869 and 
whether the United States can send a formal  request for a revision to a regulatory 
body such as the Ministry of Health (MOH), SAC or AQSIQ. 
Avian influenza (AI)  
 6. The United States is concerned about China’s recen t actions with regard to incidents of low 
pathogenicity notifiable avian influenza (LPNAI) in  the United States and, in particular, the recent 
import suspension for poultry and poultry products or iginating from the State of Pennsylvania.  The 
United States has an open and transparent animal disease reporting system, and a wealth of information about animal disease o ccurrences in the United States is available via the Internet and 
other sources.  The United States urges China’s regulatory ministries to recognize and distinguish the 
different disease risks associated with incidents of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and 
those of LPNAI before taking actions that can have  a negative impact on trade.  LPNAI presents no 
serious threat to human health or animal health. 
(a) Has China performed a risk assessment rele vant to its recent import suspension for 
poultry and poultry products originating from the State of Pennsylvania?  Please 
explain. 
(b) If China has not performed the relevant risk  assessment, can China at least provide 
the science-based rationale for maintaining its import suspension against Pennsylvania-origin poultr y and poultry products? 
7. China has also suspended the importation of heat-treated/cooked poultry and poultry products 
from Pennsylvania.  The OIE’s AI chapter clearly stat es that products that have been heat-treated in a 
manner to inactivate the virus should not be s ubject to an AI-related import suspension.   
(a) Has China performed a risk assessment relevant to the extension of its import 
suspension to heat-treated/cooked poultry and poultry products originating from the State of Pennsylvania?  Please explain. 
(b) If China has not performed the relevant risk  assessment, can China at least provide 
the science-based rationale for extending its  import suspension to Pennsylvania-origin 
heat-treated/cooked poultry and poultry products? 
Regulatory transparency 
 
8. The United States remains concerned about the number of SPS measures that China enforces 
against US products without notification to the WTO Secretariat for Member comments prior to 
adoption and implementation.  We have identified over 20 of these measures issued between 1 July 
2005 and 30 August 2006.  The most significant of them (in chronological order) include:   
(i) MOH and SAC Hygienic Standard for Fresh (Frozen) Meat of Livestock (GB 2707), 
2005 Revision; 
(ii) MOA Announcement No. 517, Additional Chinese Product Registration 
Requirements, issued 6 June 2005;  G/SPS/W/207 
Page 4  
 
  (iii) AQSIQ Circular 690, Dairy Standard, issued 1 October 2005;  
(iv) MOH and SAC Hygienic Standard for Grains (GB 2715), 2005 Revision;  
(v) SAC and AQSIQ National Standard for Fresh and Frozen Poultry Products 
(GB 6869), 2005 Revision;  
(vi) MOH Circular No. 1, Food Additive Supp lement (GB 2760), Revision 1 for 2006;  
(vii) MOH Circular No. 5, Food Additive Supp lement (GB 2760), Revision 2 of 2006;  
(viii) AQSIQ Ban on Pennsylvania Poultry, eff ective 12 July 2006 (published on AQSIQ’s 
website on 18 August 2006);  
(ix) MOA Announcement No. 611, Animal Feed Registration Requirements, issued 
15 July 2006;  
(x) AQSIQ Notice 777, Cadmium Residue Standard, issued 27 July 2006;  
(xi) AQSIQ Announcement No. 89 (2006), Inspection and Quarantine Requirements on 
Conditional Resumption of Boneless Beef Imports from the United States (published on AQSIQ’s website on 31 July 2006);  
(xii) MOA Announcement No. 617, List of Agricultural Plant Quarantine Object and Plant 
and Plant Products Subject to Quarantine, 2006 Revision; and  
(xiii) SAC Maximum Level of Contaminants in Foods (GB 2762), 2006 Revision.  
9. Some of these measures implement new registration requirements, and others set new safety 
standards for residues, while still others invoke  new procedures for inspection or identify new 
quarantine pests.  Some of the measures do not appe ar to be based on previously existing standards.  
The United States appreciates the fact that many of these measures are now posted on Chinese 
government websites.  Invariably, however, these ne w measures have raised th e cost of entry into 
China for US producers, particularly due to the l ack of opportunity to review and assess them in 
advance. 
(a) What steps does China plan on taking to improve its record of notifying SPS 
measures to the WTO Secretariat? 
(b) Please explain whether any of the above measures have been published in China’s 
official journal, the MOFCOM Gazette. 
Packing house lists 
 
10. AQSIQ requires that the United States and US in dustry provide China with annually updated 
lists of approved fruit packing facilities for use by Chinese port-of-entry inspectors to verify imported 
shipments of US-origin fruit.  Currently, these lists  are maintained and annua lly updated for citrus, 
grapes, two varieties of apples, cherries and plums.  This AQSIQ requirement provides no 
phytosanitary security to China, and trade is ofte n disrupted when local Chinese port inspectors do not 
have updated lists.  As an alternativ e, US negotiators have proposed that these lists be maintained by 
US plant health authorities for consultation purposes  if and when there are pest detections on US-
origin shipments at Chinese ports of entry.  This  approach would mirror the established practice with 
the United States’ other trading partners. 
(a) Would China explain why these lists must be  used as inspection criteria at Chinese 
ports of entry?     G/SPS/W/207 
 Page 5 
 
 
  National fruit fly trapping program 
 
11. China is the only US trading partner that does not recognize our risk-based National Fruit Fly 
Trapping Program (NFFTP).  As a result, the Unit ed States and US producers must maintain an 
alternative trapping program solely for trade with Chin a.  This requirement is costly and scientifically 
unnecessary.  The United States, in accordance with the NFFTP, is committed to continue providing 
China (and other trading partners) with up-to-dat e information about outbreaks of quarantine fruit 
flies in the United States.  The NFFTP ensures that all trading partners are notified in an immediate 
manner. 
(a) Could China provide a science-based rationale for why it has been unwilling to 
recognize the United States’ NFFTP? 
Hygienic standards for food contact materials  
 
12. National Standard GB 9685-2003, issued by Ch ina’s Ministry of Health (MOH), establishes 
hygienic standards for several polymeric materials commonly used to produce food-contact materials, 
including polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, et c.  Hygienic standards also exist for materials 
used to manufacture these polymers.  These standa rds list substances that are approved for use as 
additives in food containers and packaging materi als.  Under these standards, China has approved 
only 65 types of materials for use in food packaging and food-contact materials sold in its market.  To 
date, MOH officials have not set forth the specifi c procedures that must be followed to obtain new 
approvals, and it remains unclear to what extent or under what circumstances China will permit the 
use of the thousands of materials currently permitte d for use in food-contact materials in the United 
States, Europe and/or Canada.  Many of these pr oducts already exist in the Chinese stream of 
commerce and, if not permitted, could lead to  significant economic losses for US and other 
producers/suppliers.   
(a) Could China clarify how it intends to pro ceed in this area?  Specifically, does China 
intend to accept as valid food-contact appr ovals issued by foreign regulatory 
authorities?   
(b) What procedures does China intend to fo llow for issuing new approvals for food-
contact materials not previously approved in China or by foreign regulatory authorities? 
__________