2014 REPORT ON SANITARY 

AND PHYTOSANITARY 

MEASURES

UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

2014 Report on 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

Measures 

Ambassador Michael B.G. Froman

Office of the United States Trade Representative

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for the preparation 

of this report. In preparing the report, USTR solicited substantial information from U.S. 

embassies and from interested stakeholders. USTR gratefully acknowledges in particular the 

contributions of all U.S. government staff who contributed to the drafting and review of this 

report. Appreciation is extended to the Executive Branch agencies, including the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Departments of 

Agriculture, Commerce, and State, for their important contributions and assistance. Finally, 

special thanks go to all U.S. Federal employees who work every day to resolve sanitary and 

phytosanitary trade barriers, helping to expand U.S. food and agricultural exports around the 

world.

March 2014

LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AI Avian Influenza

APEC Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

APHIS USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

AQSIQ China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection, and 

Quarantine

BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina

BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

CAFTA-DR Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 

Agreement

CAN Andean Community

Codex Codex Alimentarius Commission

CTPA United States - Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement

CU Customs Union of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, and Belarus

ECJ European Court of Justice

EEC European Economic Commission

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EFSA European Food Safety Authority

END Exotic Newcastle Disease

EU European Union

FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

FAS USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service

FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FGIS Federal Grain Inspection Service

FSIS USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service

FTA Free Trade Agreement

GE Genetically Engineered

GFSP Global Food Safety Partnership

HPAI Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza

IFSTL International Food Safety Training Laboratory

IICA Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention

JCCT Joint Commission for Commerce and Trade

JIFSAN Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
KB Karnal Bunt

LMO Act Korea’s Living Modified Organisms Act

LPAI Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza

MAPA Brazil’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply

MARD Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MRL Maximum Residue Limit

MT Metric ton

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NTE National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers

OIE World Organization for Animal Health

PMWS Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome

PRA Pest Risk Assessment

PRRS Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome

PRT Pathogen Reduction Treatment

SADC South African Development Community

SCC Somatic cell count

SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary

SPS Agreement WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

Measures

SPS Committee WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

SRM Specified Risk Material

STDF Standards and Trade Development Facility

SWD Spotted Wing Drosophila

TBT Technical Barriers to Trade

TBT Agreement WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade

TIFA Trade and Investment Framework Agreement

TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership

TPSC Trade Policy Staff Committee

TRQ Tariff Rate Quota

TWG Trade Working Group

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USTR Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
VEA U.S.-EU Veterinary Equivalency Agreement

WHO World Health Organization

WTO World Trade Organization

FOREWORD

In 2013, the Obama Administration eliminated unwarranted barriers to U.S. food and 

agricultural exports, helping these exports exceed $148 billion, an all-time high. By 

eliminating these barriers, we are helping to increase farm income, grow manufacturing jobs in 

the food sector, and provide consumers around the world access to safe, high-quality American 

food and agricultural goods. 

I am pleased to publish the fifth annual Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS 

Report), which identifies the Administration’s ongoing efforts to eliminate discriminatory or 

otherwise unwarranted barriers to U.S. food and agriculture. This report was created to 

maintain an inventory of the concerns of U.S. farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers 

who confront sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) trade barriers as they seek to export highquality American food and agricultural products globally. 

SPS measures are rules and procedures that governments use to ensure that foods and 

beverages are safe to consume and to protect animals and plants from unwanted pests and 

diseases. Many SPS measures are fully justified, but too often, some governments cloak 

discriminatory and protectionist trade measures in the guise of ensuring human, animal, or 

plant safety. 

Some of our successes in 2013 include expanding U.S. beef exports by 12 percent to reach 

over $6 billion by expanding access for U.S. beef to Japan, the European Union, Indonesia, 

Mexico, Panama, and the Dominican Republic. In 2013, the European Union also opened its 

market to live swine. Peaches, nectarines, and cherries may now be exported to Australia and 

Japan. In 2014, USTR will continue to work across the U.S. Government, as well as with 

interested stakeholders, to encourage other governments to remove their unwarranted SPS 

measures. 

We are committed to continuing to engage other governments in all available bilateral, 

regional, and multilateral fora as part of our efforts to dismantle these barriers to U.S. food and 

agricultural exports and strengthen the rules-based trading system to ensure a level playing 

field abroad for U.S. farm and ranch products. We look forward to making further progress on 

behalf of America’s farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers, as well as the families who 

depend on export-supported American jobs. 

Ambassador Michael Froman 

U.S. Trade Representative 

March 2014 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1

II. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3

A. Genesis of This Report ........................................................................................... 3

B. SPS Measures – What They Are, Why They Are Needed, and When They 

Become Trade Barriers .......................................................................................... 4

C. The World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Measures ......................................................................................... 5

D. Other SPS-Related International Agreements ........................................................ 9

E. International Standard Setting Bodies .................................................................. 10

F. U.S. Government Agencies .................................................................................. 11

G. Sources of Information about SPS Trade Barriers ............................................... 13

H. U.S. Government Engagement on Foreign SPS Trade Barriers........................... 14

III. MAJOR CROSS-CUTTING SPS ISSUES ................................................................ 19

A. Export Certification Requirements ....................................................................... 19

B. Biotechnology ...................................................................................................... 21

C. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)......................................................... 22

D. Avian Influenza (AI) ............................................................................................ 23

E. Maximum Residue Levels for Pesticides ............................................................. 24

IV.COUNTRY REPORTS ...................................................................................................... 27

ARGENTINA ................................................................................................................. 28

AUSTRALIA ................................................................................................................. 29

BAHRAIN ...................................................................................................................... 31

BANGLADESH ............................................................................................................. 32

BOLIVIA........................................................................................................................ 32

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA .................................................................................. 32
ii

BRAZIL.......................................................................................................................... 33

CHILE ............................................................................................................................ 34

CHINA ........................................................................................................................... 36

COLOMBIA ................................................................................................................... 40

COSTA RICA ................................................................................................................ 41

ECUADOR ..................................................................................................................... 41

EGYPT ........................................................................................................................... 42

ETHIOPIA...................................................................................................................... 43

EUROPEAN UNION ..................................................................................................... 43

HONG KONG ................................................................................................................ 56

INDIA ............................................................................................................................. 57

INDONESIA .................................................................................................................. 58

IRAQ .............................................................................................................................. 59

ISRAEL .......................................................................................................................... 59

JAMAICA ...................................................................................................................... 60

JAPAN............................................................................................................................ 60

KAZAKHSTAN ............................................................................................................. 64

KENYA .......................................................................................................................... 66

KOREA .......................................................................................................................... 67

KUWAIT ........................................................................................................................ 68

KYRGYZSTAN ............................................................................................................. 69

MACEDONIA................................................................................................................ 69

MALAYSIA ................................................................................................................... 69

MEXICO ........................................................................................................................ 70

MOROCCO .................................................................................................................... 72
iii

NAMIBIA ...................................................................................................................... 72

NIGERIA........................................................................................................................ 72

NORWAY ...................................................................................................................... 73

PERU .............................................................................................................................. 73

PHILIPPINES ................................................................................................................ 75

RUSSIA .......................................................................................................................... 75

SAUDI ARABIA ........................................................................................................... 79

SENEGAL ...................................................................................................................... 79

SERBIA .......................................................................................................................... 80

SINGAPORE.................................................................................................................. 80

SOUTH AFRICA ........................................................................................................... 80

SOUTH AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY ............................................... 81

SRI LANKA ................................................................................................................... 82

SWITZERLAND............................................................................................................ 82

TAIWAN ........................................................................................................................ 82

THAILAND ................................................................................................................... 85

TURKEY ........................................................................................................................ 86

UKRAINE ...................................................................................................................... 88

URUGUAY .................................................................................................................... 88

VENEZUELA ................................................................................................................ 89

VIETNAM...................................................................................................................... 89

V. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ............................................................................................ 91

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................... 99

1

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 2014 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Report) is a specialized report 

dedicated to describing significant barriers to U.S. food, farm, and ranch exports arising from 

measures that foreign governments apply on the grounds that such measures are necessary to 

protect human, animal, or plant life or health from risks arising from the entry or spread of plantor animal-borne pests or diseases, or from additives, contaminants, toxins, or disease-causing 

organisms in foods, beverages, or feedstuffs. These measures, known in World Trade 

Organization (WTO) terminology as “sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures,” play an 

increasingly critical role in shaping the flow of global trade. The United States strongly supports 

the right of governments through robust regulatory frameworks to protect their people, animals, 

and plants from health risks of this kind. This report focuses on SPS measures that appear to be 

unscientific, unduly burdensome, discriminatory, or otherwise unwarranted and create significant 

barriers to U.S. exports. Many of these measures can present particular challenges for small and 

medium sized enterprises that typically lack the resources to identify and address such barriers. 

This report is intended to describe and advance U.S. efforts to identify and eliminate these 

unwarranted measures.

Section II of this report presents an overview of SPS measures, describes the relevant 

international agreements governing these measures, and discusses the transparent mechanisms 

for addressing them. In particular, section II covers the following topics: 

1. the genesis of this report; 

2. the growing importance of SPS measures in global trade; 

3. rules governing SPS measures under the WTO’s Agreement on the Application of 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement); 

4. rules and mechanisms regarding SPS measures in U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs); 

5. international standard setting in the SPS area; 

6. the role of various U.S. Government agencies in addressing SPS-related trade issues; 

7. sources of information about SPS trade barriers; and 

8. U.S. trade policy mechanisms for considering and addressing SPS measures, 

including bilateral engagement and WTO dispute settlement.

Section III discusses important unwarranted SPS barriers that impede U.S. exports to multiple 

foreign markets. Among the most significant of these cross-cutting barriers are restrictions 

related to export certifications, agricultural biotechnology, bovine spongiform encephalopathy 

(BSE), avian influenza (AI), and maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides.
2

The focal point of this report is section IV, which identifies and describes significant 

unwarranted SPS-related trade barriers currently facing U.S. exporters, along with U.S. 

Government initiatives to eliminate or reduce the impact of these barriers. The report identifies 

SPS measures in the following countries and groups of countries: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, 

Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, 

Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, the European Union, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, 

Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mexico, 

Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, 

Singapore, South Africa, the South African Development Community, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, 

Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

Section V discusses the U.S. Government’s efforts to provide technical assistance to developing 

countries on SPS issues. Such assistance is instrumental in U.S. efforts to ensure that countries 

adopt and maintain science-based SPS measures, and help eliminate impediments to U.S. food 

and agricultural exports.
3

II. INTRODUCTION

A. Genesis of This Report

Shortly after taking office in 2009, President Obama reaffirmed America’s commitment to 

ensuring the effective implementation and enforcement of the WTO system of multilateral 

trading rules. The President’s 2009 Trade Policy Agenda outlined an aggressive and transparent 

program of defending U.S. rights and benefits under the rules-based trading system as a key 

element in his vision to restore the role of trade in leading economic growth and promoting 

higher living standards. The President’s Agenda also recognized that “behind the border” 

measures and other non-tariff barriers have grown in significance for U.S. exporters seeking 

access to foreign markets.

Since 2009, the USTR has redoubled efforts to break down barriers to U.S. exports. One type of 

non-tariff measure poses increasing challenges to U.S. producers and businesses seeking to 

export products abroad are SPS measures, which are measures that governments apply to protect 

human, animal, or plant life or health from risks arising from the entry or spread of plant- or 

animal-borne pests or diseases, or from additives, contaminants, toxins, or disease-causing 

organisms in foods, beverages, or feedstuffs; and standards-related measures, such as mandatory 

product standards and testing requirements.

USTR has stepped up monitoring of trading partners’ SPS practices that act as unwarranted 

obstacles to U.S. trade. USTR has also increased engagement to resolve trade issues and to help 

ensure that U.S. trading partners are complying with trade rules – particularly those relating to 

obligations under the SPS Agreement. The goal of this intensified monitoring and engagement is 

to help to facilitate and expand trade in safe, high-quality U.S. food and agricultural products. In 

February 2012, President Obama established the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC), 

bringing together resources and expertise from across the federal government into one 

organization with a clear, “all hands on deck” commitment to strong trade enforcement. ITEC

has staff from a variety of agencies – including subject matter experts from the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA). ITEC enhances the U.S. government’s capability to proactively enforce 

U.S. trade rights through investigation of unfair trade practices, including SPS-related trade 

barriers.

This annual report has brought new energy to the process of identifying SPS measures that act as 

significant barriers to U.S. exports; to provide a central focus for intensified engagement by U.S. 

agencies in resolving trade concerns related to these barriers; and to document ongoing efforts to 

give greater transparency and confidence to American farmers, ranchers, workers, businesses, 

consumers, and other stakeholders with regard to the actions this Administration is taking on 

their behalf.

First published in 2010, the SPS Report is dedicated to describing significant and unwarranted 

SPS barriers in foreign countries. Many of these measures were previously addressed in the 
4

National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE Report).1 By addressing 

significant foreign trade barriers in the form of SPS measures, the SPS Report meets the 

requirements under Section 181 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, to report on significant 

foreign trade barriers with respect to SPS measures. Accordingly, the 2014 NTE Report itself 

does not contain information on these measures. A separate report addressing significant foreign 

trade barriers stemming from technical regulations, standards, and conformity assessment 

procedures (2014 Report on Technical Barriers to Trade, or TBT Report) is being released in 

parallel with the SPS Report.

As noted above, the SPS Report begins with an overview of SPS measures and the international 

trade rules that govern them. It then summarizes the manner in which the U.S. Government 

addresses SPS trade barriers in other countries. Next, the SPS Report discusses certain crosscutting SPS trade barriers that U.S. producers face in a number of different markets. The next 

section, comprising the focal point of the SPS Report, identifies and describes SPS trade barriers 

on a country-by- country basis, along with a description of U.S. Government engagement on 

these issues. The SPS Report concludes with a discussion of the U.S. Government’s efforts to 

provide technical assistance to developing countries on SPS issues.

Like the NTE Report, the source of the information for the SPS Report includes stakeholder 

comments that USTR solicited through:

• a notice published in the Federal Register;

• reports from U.S. embassies and from other federal agencies; and 

• USTR’s ongoing consultations with domestic stakeholders and trading partners.

An appendix provides a list of entities that submitted comments in response to the Federal 

Register notice.

B. SPS Measures – What They Are, Why They Are Needed, and When They Become 

Trade Barriers

As noted above, SPS measures are those laws, decrees, regulations, requirements, and 

procedures that governments apply to protect human, animal, or plant life or health from risks 

arising from the entry or spread of plant- or animal-borne pests or diseases, or from additives, 

contaminants, toxins, or disease-causing organisms in foods, beverages, or feedstuffs. For 

example, the United States and other governments routinely apply measures at the border to 

protect domestic crops or livestock from imported agricultural products or animals that may 

 1 In accordance with section 181 of the Trade Act of 1974 (the 1974 Trade Act), as amended by section 303 of the

Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 (the 1984 Trade Act), section 1304 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of

1988 (the 1988 Trade Act), section 311 of the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements Act (the 1994 Trade Act), and

section 1202 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is required to submit to the

President, the Senate Finance Committee, and appropriate committees in the House of Representatives, an annual

report on significant foreign trade barriers. The statute requires an inventory of the most important foreign barriers

affecting U.S. exports of goods and services, foreign direct investment by U.S. persons, and protection of intellectual

property rights.
5

introduce a plant pest or animal disease into the country. Many countries also have established 

MRLs for pesticide residues in food to promote the safe use of pesticides on food, as well as 

requirements that imported fruits, vegetables, and feed products be treated to eliminate a 

particular pest to protect plant health. In addition, governments often require live animals to be

subject to veterinary health examinations, disease testing, and sometimes pre- or post-entry 

quarantine.

At times, however, some governments impose SPS measures that are disguised protectionist 

barriers to trade, not grounded in science, or that are otherwise unwarranted, and which create 

substantial obstacles to U.S. exports. For example, many countries have used the threat of AI or 

BSE as a reason to block trade in U.S. poultry meat and beef, respectively, ignoring international 

science-based standards that establish appropriate measures for addressing those diseases.

Maintaining dependable export markets for U.S. agricultural producers is critical to this nation’s 

economic health. Overall, U.S. farm exports totaled $148 billion in 2013. According to USDA’s 

Economic Research Service, each $1 billion in U.S. agricultural exports in 2012 supports 

approximately 6,577 jobs on and off the farm. At the same time, however, SPS trade barriers 

prevent U.S. producers from shipping hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of goods, hurting 

farms and small businesses. The elimination of unwarranted SPS foreign trade barriers is a high 

priority for the U.S. Government.

The U.S. Government’s pursuit of both goals – safeguarding the United States from risks to 

human, animal, or plant life or health as discussed above, and aggressively defending the 

interests of U.S. producers in exporting safe, wholesome products to foreign markets – are fully 

consistent. The United States and other governments have a legitimate and sovereign right to 

adopt and enforce measures to protect their people, animals, and plants from SPS-related risks. 

At the same time, it is appropriate to question SPS measures that appear to be discriminatory, 

unscientific, or otherwise unwarranted and thus do not serve to guard against legitimate health

and safety risks but rather act to protect domestic or favored foreign products.

C. The World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Measures

The SPS Agreement, to which all WTO Members are parties, explicitly recognizes that 

governments have the right to adopt regulations to protect human, animal, or plant life or 

health, including food safety regulations and measures to protect domestic crops, livestock, and 

poultry – and to establish the levels of protection from risk they deem appropriate. Starting 

from that premise, the SPS Agreement establishes a number of general requirements and 

procedures to ensure that governments adopt and apply SPS measures to protect against real 

risks rather than to protect local products from import competition. The SPS Agreement also 

encourages harmonization of SPS measures among WTO Members, where appropriate.

Some of the more important elements of the SPS Agreement are described in this section.
6

The Scope of the SPS Agreement

The SPS Agreement applies only to those governmental measures that may directly or indirectly 

affect international trade. If a measure has no trade effect or is imposed by a private company or 

trade association, the SPS Agreement does not apply to it. The Agreement defines SPS measures 

as any measure that a WTO Member applies:

• to protect animal or plant life or health within the territory of the Member from risks 

arising from the entry, establishment or spread of pests, diseases, disease-carrying 

organisms or disease-causing organisms;

• to protect human or animal life or health within the territory of the Member from risks 

arising from additives, contaminants, toxins, or disease-causing organisms in foods, 

beverages or feedstuffs;

• to protect human life or health within the territory of the Member from risks arising from 

diseases carried by animals, plants or products thereof, or from the entry, establishment 

or spread of pests; or

• to prevent or limit other damage in the territory of the Member from the entry, 

establishment or spread of pests.

SPS measures include all relevant laws, decrees, regulations, requirements, and procedures 

including, among others: end product criteria; processes and production methods; testing, 

inspection, certification, and approval procedures; quarantine treatments, including relevant 

requirements associated with the transport of animals or plants, or with the materials necessary 

for their survival during transport; provisions on relevant statistical methods, sampling 

procedures, and methods of risk assessment; and packaging and labeling requirements directly 

related to food safety.

Appropriate Level of Protection

As noted above, the SPS Agreement explicitly recognizes the right of each WTO Member to take 

SPS measures necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health. An important question 

is how much protection a Member may seek against a particular risk when it adopts an SPS 

measure. Under the SPS Agreement, each Member is free to choose its own “appropriate level 

of sanitary or phytosanitary protection.”

Science-Based Measures

Once a WTO Member has established its appropriate level of protection, the SPS Agreement 

provides that the SPS measures it takes to achieve that level of protection must be based on 

scientific principles, must not be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, and may be 

applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health. In cases 

where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient, a government may provisionally adopt SPS 

measures on the basis of available information. In such circumstances, WTO Members are 
7

required to seek to obtain the additional information necessary for a more objective assessment 

of risk and review the SPS measure accordingly within a reasonable period of time.

Risk Assessment

The SPS Agreement requires each Member to ensure that its SPS measures are based on an 

assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risk that a particular substance or product, 

including a process or production method, poses to human, animal, or plant life or health.

Unjustifiable Discrimination and Disguised Restrictions on Trade

While each WTO Member is free to choose the level of protection it considers appropriate, the 

SPS Agreement requires Members to ensure that their SPS measures are not more traderestrictive than required to achieve that level of protection, taking into account technical and 

economic feasibility. It also requires governments to avoid arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions 

in the levels of protection in different situations if such distinctions result in discrimination 

against a good from another WTO Member or constitute a disguised restriction on international 

trade.

Harmonization

The SPS Agreement calls for governments to base their SPS measures on international standards, 

guidelines, and recommendations developed by international standard setting organizations. The 

objective in promoting the use of international standards is to facilitate trade by harmonizing 

different WTO Members’ SPS measures on as wide a basis as possible. The three recognized 

standard-setting bodies in the SPS Agreement are the: 

• Joint Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO)/World Health 

Organization (WHO) Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) for food safety;

• FAO International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) for plant health; and 

• World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), for animal health and zoonoses.

A WTO Member may depart from an international standard, guideline, or recommendation only 

if the Member’s measure is in accordance with the obligations of the SPS Agreement.

Transparency

The SPS Agreement requires WTO Members to publish promptly all adopted SPS measures in a 

manner that enables other interested WTO Members to become acquainted with them prior to 

their entry into force. The SPS Agreement also requires each Member to maintain an enquiry 

point that is responsible for providing relevant documents and answers to all reasonable 

questions from interested Members concerning SPS regulations adopted or proposed in the 

Member’s territory. In addition, the SPS Agreement requires each WTO Member to publish any 

proposed SPS measure that is not based on an international standard, guideline, or 

recommendation and that may have a significant effect on trade, and to provide other Members 
8

with prior notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposal, except where “urgent problems 

of health protection” are involved.

The United States takes its transparency obligations very seriously and encourages other WTO 

Members to do the same. Since the WTO was established in 1995, the United States has 

submitted an average of 158 SPS notifications per year.

SPS Committee

The SPS Agreement established a Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS 

Committee) to provide a regular forum at the WTO for consultations about SPS measures that 

affect trade and to oversee the implementation of the SPS Agreement.

The SPS Committee is open to all WTO Members as well as governments that have observer 

status in higher level WTO bodies, such as the General Council. The U.S. delegation to the SPS 

Committee is led by USTR, and includes representatives from USDA, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. 

Departments of Commerce and State. The United States is an active participant at SPS 

Committee meetings, where it regularly raises issues for Members to consider. In addition to 

participating WTO Members, the SPS Committee has invited representatives of several 

international intergovernmental organizations to attend as observers. Representatives from 

Codex, the OIE, the IPPC, and the WHO have been among the observers.

The agenda for SPS Committee meetings varies, but several items appear regularly. WTO 

Members routinely discuss matters related to how the SPS Agreement is being applied and 

implemented and specific trade concerns, such as minimum residue levels for pesticides.

Members also discuss and develop procedures and guidelines that help governments implement 

their obligations under the SPS Agreement. All procedures and guidelines that the SPS 

Committee establishes must be adopted by consensus.

Since 2002 the United States has raised 195 items of trade concern during the formal, on the 

record, WTO SPS Committee meetings.

Technical Assistance

The SPS Agreement encourages all Members to facilitate technical assistance to developing 

country Members either bilaterally or through relevant international organizations, such as the 

Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF), the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation 

on Agriculture (IICA), and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). The STDF is a joint 

initiative of the WTO, FAO, OIE, and WHO aimed at raising awareness on the importance of 

SPS issues, increasing coordination in the provision of SPS-related assistance, and mobilizing 

resources to assist developing countries enhance their capacity to meet SPS standards. The IICA 

is a specialized agency of the Inter-American System, whose purpose is to encourage and 

support the efforts of its Member States to achieve agricultural development and well-being for 

rural populations. APEC is a forum for facilitating economic growth, cooperation, trade and 

investment in the Asia-Pacific region, by creating an environment for the safe and efficient 

movement of goods, services and people across borders in the region through policy alignment, 
9

and economic and technical cooperation. Effective and targeted capacity-building and technical 

assistance play important roles in creating a transparent and science-based environment as 

envisioned under the SPS Agreement, thus supporting APEC’s trade and investment 

liberalization agenda.

The U.S. Government has put into place a number of programs that provide technical assistance 

to developing countries to help these countries meet their international obligations with respect 

to SPS measures and thereby facilitate trade in agricultural products. This assistance takes 

various forms, including training seminars, laboratory training, advice on drafting rules and 

regulations, staff internships, and data sharing. U.S. technical assistance is discussed in greater 

detail in section V of this report.

D. Other SPS-Related International Agreements

The North American Free Trade Agreement

Because the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into force before the 

WTO was established, and thus before there were enforceable multilateral disciplines on SPS 

measures, the NAFTA contains a much more detailed SPS chapter than later U.S. free trade 

agreements (FTAs). For example, the NAFTA imposes specific disciplines on the development, 

adoption, and enforcement of SPS measures. As is the case with the SPS Agreement, the 

NAFTA SPS disciplines are designed to prevent the use of SPS measures as disguised 

restrictions on trade, while still safeguarding each Party’s right to protect consumers from unsafe 

products, or to protect domestic crops and livestock from the introduction of foreign agricultural

pests and diseases via imported cargo.

The NAFTA encourages the three NAFTA Parties (the United States, Canada, and Mexico) to 

adopt international and regional standards, while at the same time explicitly recognizing each 

Party's right to determine its appropriate level of protection. Such flexibility permits each Party 

to set standards that are more stringent than international guidelines, as long as those standards 

are scientifically-based.

The NAFTA Committee on SPS Measures promotes the harmonization and equivalence of SPS 

measures between the three Parties and facilitates technical cooperation, including consultations 

regarding disputes involving SPS measures. The Committee meets periodically to review and 

resolve SPS issues.

The NAFTA SPS Committee also hosts a number of technical working groups (TWGs) that have 

served to enhance regulatory cooperation and facilitate trade between the three NAFTA 

countries. TWGs address trade issues and national regulatory and scientific review capacity.

They also coordinate regulatory decision-making to reduce the burden on industry. For example, 

the NAFTA TWG on pesticides has created a venue for collaboration between U.S. EPA’s

Office of Pesticides Programs and its counterparts in Canada and Mexico. The primary objective 

of this working group is to enhance cooperation and harmonize pesticide standards while 

maintaining and enhancing standards of food safety, public health, and environmental protection.
10

Other U.S. Free Trade Agreements

Most FTAs that the United States has concluded since the WTO was established in 1995 include 

an SPS chapter.2 While those chapters do not impose new or additional substantive rules or 

obligations, many of these agreements establish SPS committees that provide a forum for the 

parties’ trade and regulatory authorities to discuss contentious bilateral or regional SPS issues, 

consult on SPS matters that are pending before relevant international organizations, and 

coordinate technical cooperation programs.

E. International Standard Setting Bodies

As noted above, the WTO officially recognizes three standard setting bodies to deal with SPS 

matters: the Codex for food safety, the OIE for animal health and zoonoses, and the IPPC for 

plant health. U.S. Government experts participate actively in these organizations, which meet 

periodically to discuss current and anticipated threats to human and agricultural health, evaluate 

scientific issues surrounding SPS-related issues, and develop internationally recognized SPS 

standards based on science. These standards are voluntary and are intended to provide guidance 

for governments in formulating their own national SPS measures and, ultimately, to help avoid 

and resolve disputes over appropriate SPS measures. As discussed below, various USDA 

agencies lead the U.S. delegations to these three international bodies. The United States strongly 

encourages its trading partners to adopt the standards set by Codex, IPPC, and the OIE.

In recent years, the United States has supported a number of important standards developed by 

these international bodies. For example, the OIE has worked to promulgate science-based 

guidelines to be followed in the event that a potentially dangerous strain of AI is detected.

According to these guidelines, unprocessed poultry products from countries that report detections 

of low pathogenic AI (LPAI) may be traded with minimal restrictions, and countries reporting 

highly pathogenic AI (HPAI) may trade safely in poultry and poultry products under specified 

conditions. The guidelines, however, do not recommend any type of import bans on poultry 

commodities from countries with non-notifiable subtypes of avian influenza.

More recently, on July 5, 2012, Codex adopted eight standards for the maximum residue levels 

for ractopamine in beef and pork. Ractopamine is an animal drug approved for use in feed for

cattle and swine, which results in increased weight gain, an increase in the yield of red meat, and 

leaner meat production. The Codex standards, which are based on science and a risk assessment, 

provide clear guidance to countries on the safe use of ractopamine. Ractopamine has been 

approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is being used safely in the United States 

and 25 other countries.

 2 Among the U.S. Free Trade Agreements that include an SPS chapter are the United States – Australia FTA, the

United States – Bahrain FTA, the United States – Chile FTA, the United States – Colombia Trade Promotion

Agreement (TPA), the Dominican Republic – Central America – United States FTA (CAFTA – DR), the United

States – Korea FTA, the United States – Oman FTA, the United States – Panama TPA, and the United States – Peru

TPA. The United States – Morocco FTA does not have a stand-alone SPS chapter, but does include various SPS

provisions in its agriculture chapter.
11

F. U.S. Government Agencies

The Executive Branch has robust policies and procedures in place for addressing and resolving 

SPS trade barriers in other countries. The following discussion describes the roles that the 

relevant federal agencies play in that effort.

Office of the United States Trade Representative

USTR, an agency within the Executive Office of the President, is responsible for developing and 

coordinating U.S. international trade policy and overseeing negotiations with other countries, 

including with respect to foreign SPS measures. USTR meets with governments, business 

groups, legislators, public interest groups, and other interested parties to gather input on SPS 

issues and to discuss trade policy and negotiating positions. USTR then coordinates U.S. trade 

policy through an interagency structure (as discussed below). USTR plays a variety of roles with 

regard to trade barriers generally, including SPS barriers, such as by serving as the lead U.S. 

agency in negotiating bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements and lead U.S. counsel 

in all WTO disputes.

The head of USTR is the U.S. Trade Representative, a Cabinet member who serves as the 

President’s principal trade advisor, negotiator, and spokesperson on SPS and other trade issues. 

Created in 1962, USTR has offices in Washington and Geneva, and posts representatives in 

Beijing and Brussels.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDA plays a key role in addressing foreign SPS trade barriers as the vast majority of these 

barriers are restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports. In particular, three USDA agencies, the 

Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), 

and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), are engaged actively in interagency 

deliberations and coordination, as well as in the direct engagement with U.S. trading partners on 

SPS matters.

Foreign Agricultural Service

FAS coordinates and executes USDA’s strategy to obtain foreign market access for U.S. 

products (including addressing SPS barriers to U.S. exports), build new markets, improve the 

competitive position of U.S. agriculture in the global marketplace, and provide food aid and 

technical assistance to foreign countries. FAS has primary responsibility for USDA’s 

international activities – market development, trade agreements and negotiations, and the 

collection and analysis of statistics and market information. To perform these tasks, FAS relies 

on its global network of overseas offices with staff in over 90 foreign countries that monitor 

policies and other developments that could affect U.S. agricultural exports. FAS collects and 

analyzes information that a number of U.S. agencies use to develop strategies to increase market 

access, monitor trade agreements, and improve programs and policies to make U.S. agricultural 

products more competitive. FAS also provides significant funding to address SPS trade barriers 

under the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program. The pest research, field

surveys, and pre-clearance programs funded by TASC play an important role in supporting 
12

efforts to remove such trade barriers. FAS is a member of the U.S. delegation to the WTO SPS 

Committee and is an active member of all other interagency teams dealing with SPS issues.

As a way to streamline processes and make information more accessible for U.S. agricultural 

exporters, FAS has also established a trade facilitation desk. The one-stop service helps U.S. 

exporters navigate the complexities of the export process and makes it easier for them to access 

opportunities in every corner of the world. The trade facilitation desk assists U.S. exporters to 

obtain information on export certification, registration, and the documentation requirements for 

international trade, as well as alert USDA when U.S. food and agriculture shipments are detained 

or refused.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

APHIS works to prevent the spread of agricultural pests and diseases affecting animals and 

plants in the United States and to foster safe agricultural trade, thus serving to ensure an 

abundant, high-quality, and varied food supply worldwide. As a result of its expertise, APHIS 

plays a key role in addressing foreign agricultural trade barriers by developing and advancing 

science-based standards with U.S. trading partners to ensure that U.S. agricultural exports do not 

face unwarranted SPS restrictions. APHIS leads the U.S. Government delegation to the OIE and 

IPPC and actively participates in helping shape the draft animal and plant health standards 

proposed by these international organizations. APHIS also serves as a member of the U.S. 

delegation to the WTO SPS Committee and is an active participant in addressing all animal 

health and plant health-related SPS issues.

Food Safety and Inspection Service

FSIS is USDA’s public health agency, responsible for ensuring that the nation’s commercial 

supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and 

packaged. FSIS has significant expertise in addressing SPS barriers that foreign governments 

apply to U.S. exports of these products. FSIS is the U.S. Government coordinator for Codex 

meetings, as well as an active member of the U.S. delegation to the WTO SPS Committee and 

other interagency teams dealing with SPS issues.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) regulates pesticide use in 

the United States to protect human health and the environment; establishes MRLs to ensure 

safety of both domestically produced and imported foods; promotes the use of safe means of pest 

control; and establishes standards and requirements regarding sound pesticide and chemical 

management practices based on science. OCSPP has the lead role in coordinating EPA activities 

with respect to SPS measures of other countries, particularly pesticide MRLs and agricultural 

biotechnology. EPA is a member of the U.S. delegation to the WTO SPS Committee and is an 

active member of all other interagency teams dealing with SPS issues.
13

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

The FDA is the public health regulatory agency responsible for the safety of most of the nation’s 

domestically produced and imported foods, as well as food additives and dietary supplements. In 

addition, FDA’s regulatory authority covers the manufacture and distribution of food additives 

and drugs intended for use in animals. To work more effectively with foreign regulators, 

industry, and other stakeholders to promote product safety, FDA has recently established posts in 

strategic locations around the globe, including Belgium, Chile, China, Costa Rica, India, Mexico, 

and South Africa. FDA takes an active role in assessing foreign SPS measures, participates in 

the interagency process to address food safety issues, and is a member of the U.S. delegation for 

the WTO SPS Committee. FDA is also an active member of other interagency teams dealing 

with SPS issues such as those arising under U.S. FTAs.

U.S. Department of Commerce

In 2013, the Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration re-organized to 

better align key functions to support U.S. businesses and their workers. The new units are 

Global Markets (GM), Industry and Analysis, and Enforcement and Compliance (E&C). E&C 

contains the Office of Trade Agreements Negotiation and Compliance (TANC), which works 

closely with its interagency colleagues to address unwarranted SPS barriers, as well as all 

matters pending before the SPS Committee. In addition to TANC’s work specifically (and the 

Department’s work more generally) in removing unwarranted SPS barriers to U.S. exports, the 

Department’s GM unit, also known as the United States and Foreign Commercial Service (U.S. 

& FCS), works with U.S. companies to help them expand market access opportunities abroad.

The U.S. & FCS operates in 93 U.S. cities and in 73 countries around the world. The Department 

is a member of the U.S. delegation to the WTO SPS Committee and is an active member of all 

other interagency teams dealing with SPS issues. 

U.S. Department of State

The U.S. Department of State is responsible for carrying out the foreign policy of the United 

States. With a diplomatic presence in 190 countries, the Department of State provides on-theground context for foreign government actions on SPS measures. Department of State officers 

advocate for fair treatment of U.S. products that may be subject to unwarranted trade barriers.

The Department of State is an active participant in interagency deliberations and policy 

formulation concerning SPS measures, as well as part of the U.S. delegation to the WTO SPS 

Committee.

G. Sources of Information about SPS Trade Barriers

The United States maintains a vigorous process for identifying SPS measures that create 

unwarranted barriers to U.S. exports. USTR and other agencies learn of issues directly from 

concerned U.S. businesses and industries, farm and consumer organizations, and other 

stakeholders. U.S. agencies also rely on an extensive network of U.S. Government officials 

stationed around the globe, particularly in embassies that house both State Department and FAS 

representatives.
14

In addition, the United States receives formal notifications under WTO procedures when WTO 

Members are considering making changes in their SPS measures. FAS coordinates an 

interagency team that reviews these notifications on a weekly basis and consults with 

stakeholders including industry and consumer organization advisers. Where warranted, the 

United States submits comments to the relevant WTO Member on the potential trade effects or

scientific concerns that may arise from the changes it is considering. In 2013 alone, the 

interagency group reviewed 1005 SPS notifications by 50 WTO Members and provided 

comments to these trading partners on 98 proposed or in-force SPS measures.

Approximately 25 percent of the comments were on measures regarding processed products; 37

percent of the comments addressed requirements for live animals and fish (and their products, 

including dairy products); and the remainder covered a variety of products including bulk 

commodities and horticultural products. The leading recipients of U.S. Government comments 

included the newly acceded WTO Member Russia with 13 and Saudi Arabia, also with 13. The 

United States also submitted comments to Vietnam 11 times, to Chinese Taipei eight times and 

to China and Chile six times each.

In these comments, the United States requested its trading partners to take a number of actions, 

including but not limited to the following: change or reduce product certification requirements; 

modify requirements of a measure; clarify the intent and/or scientific justification for a measure, 

and delay implementation of a measure. The United States also requested its trading partners to 

adopt the international standards of Codex, the IPPC, and the OIE where appropriate.

H. U.S. Government Engagement on Foreign SPS Trade Barriers

The United States maintains a broad and active agenda of engagement, both to prevent the 

adoption of SPS measures that would create unnecessary barriers to U.S. exports and to resolve 

specific SPS trade concerns.

Interagency Consultation

Before formally engaging a foreign government with respect to a proposed or existing SPS 

measure, USTR generally consults with other federal agencies that participate in addressing trade 

policy matters. USTR coordinates SPS policy through a multi-tiered interagency process. The 

Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC), with representation at the senior civil service level, serves 

as the primary operating body for this interagency process. A TPSC subcommittee specifically 

devoted to addressing SPS matters supports the TPSC’s deliberations.

Levels of Engagement

The U.S. Government addresses SPS trade issues and unwarranted barriers in a variety of ways.

As discussed above, the United States provides comments to foreign governments, when 

appropriate on SPS measures that those governments have notified to the WTO. In addition, 

FAS and State Department officials stationed at U.S. embassies frequently identify proposed 

foreign SPS measures and transmit U.S. Government comments on proposed foreign SPS 

measures to the relevant foreign government officials. In parallel with these comments, FAS and 

State Department representatives typically ask the government concerned to provide a formal 
15

written response and to arrange meetings between their relevant regulatory authorities and FAS 

representatives so that they can describe U.S. concerns in detail. FAS and State Department

officials submit reports on these meetings to the relevant U.S. agencies for their collective 

consideration. Depending on the nature of the specific measure, the interagency team may 

request technical experts of the pertinent U.S. regulatory agency to meet with their counterparts 

in the relevant country to discuss U.S. concerns and, where appropriate, to propose reasonable 

alternatives that are less trade restrictive.

If the United States is unable to resolve an SPS concern through these methods, USTR, 

following coordination with the TPSC, may elect to request a meeting with the country’s senior 

regulatory and trade agency representatives, or may decide to raise the matter during a regularly 

scheduled bilateral meeting with the trading partner at the WTO SPS Committee meeting in 

Geneva. In addition, USTR may decide to address the issue in the contest of a meeting convened 

under the appropriate bilateral or regional U.S. FTA, or Trade Investment Framework 

Agreement (TIFA), or decide to pursue the issue during the course of a formal WTO SPS 

Committee meeting, where all WTO Members will have the opportunity to listen and comment 

on the issue at hand. USTR leads these discussions and works closely with the relevant 

regulatory agencies to address the relevant concern. If the issue cannot be resolved through 

bilateral consultations, USTR may ask the U.S. Ambassador in the country concerned to raise the 

matter with the appropriate senior foreign government officials.

WTO Dispute Settlement

If none of these methods of engagement is successful in resolving a particular concern, USTR 

may conclude that a bilaterally agreed approach is not possible. At that point, if the trading 

partner is a WTO Member, and if the United States considers that measure is inconsistent with 

WTO rules, the United States may decide to assert its rights under the SPS Agreement through 

the WTO’s dispute settlement system. Since the WTO was established in 1995, the United 

States has successfully challenged other Members’ SPS measures in four separate proceedings. 

Additionally, one proceeding is suspended and a sixth proceeding is currently underway. These 

proceedings are described below.

India – Restrictions on Certain U.S. Agricultural Products

On March 6, 2012, the United States requested consultations with India under the dispute 

settlement provisions of the WTO regarding India’s measures that serve to preclude the import of 

certain U.S. agricultural products. India’s measures are purportedly for the purpose of 

preventing the entry of avian influenza. The United States is concerned that India has not 

provided a valid, scientifically-based justification for its measures.

The United States and India held consultations on April 16-17, 2012, but were unable to resolve 

the dispute. The United States requested the establishment of a WTO panel on May 24, 2012.

At its meeting on June 25, 2012, the WTO dispute settlement body established a panel.
16

During 2013, the United States and India, as well as third parties, filed written submissions with 

the panel. The panel also held two meetings with the Parties: one in July 2013 and one in 

December 2013. The panel is expected to issue a final report in July 2014.

EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)

In 1996, the United States challenged the European Union’s (EU) ban on beef derived from U.S. 

cattle that have been treated with certain growth-promoting hormones.3 In 1998, the WTO found 

that the EU’s ban was not supported by science and was thus inconsistent with the EU’s 

obligations under the SPS Agreement. Accordingly, in 1999, following authorization from the 

WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body, the United States raised its duties on a list of EU exports.

In May 2009, the United States and the EU concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

that has enabled U.S. producers to gain additional duty-free access to the EU market for highquality beef produced from cattle that have not received growth-promoting hormones. The MOU 

took effect in August 2009. In August 2012, the United States and the EU entered into the 

second phase of the MOU, resulting in an increased EU tariff rate quota (TRQ) for high-quality 

beef. In August 2013, the TRQ was extended for an additional two years. Consistent with its 

obligations under the second phase of the MOU, the United States is no longer applying 

increased duties on EU products pursuant to its authorization from the Dispute Settlement Body

in the EC – Hormones dispute. The United States continues to monitor EU implementation of 

the MOU and other developments affecting market access for U.S. beef products.

Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products – Varietal Testing

In 1997, the United States challenged Japan’s varietal testing requirement, which prohibited the 

importation of certain fruits and nuts on the basis that they could become potential hosts for 

codling moths. In 1999, the WTO found that Japan’s restrictions were maintained without 

sufficient scientific evidence and that they were not based on a risk assessment. In 2001, the 

United States and Japan reached a mutually agreed solution to end the dispute, allowing U.S. 

exporters to regain market access in Japan.

Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples

In 2002, the United States challenged Japan’s restrictions on imports of U.S. apples, which were 

based on concerns over the introduction of fire blight. The WTO found in 2003 that Japan’s 

restrictions were inconsistent with its obligations under the SPS Agreement. In particular, the 

WTO found that Japan’s measures were maintained without sufficient scientific evidence and 

were not based on a risk assessment. In 2005, a WTO compliance panel found that Japan had 

not complied with the WTO’s recommendations and rulings. Later that year, Japan and the 

United States reached a mutually agreed solution to provide access for U.S. apples to Japan’s 

market.

 3 Before 2010 the European Union was referred to for purposes of the WTO as the European Communities.
17

European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products

In 2003, the United States challenged the EU’s de facto moratorium on approvals of U.S. 

agricultural products derived from modern biotechnology, such as certain corn and soybean 

varieties, as well as marketing prohibitions that individual EU Member States had imposed on 

agricultural biotechnology products that the EU had previously approved. In 2006, a WTO panel 

found that EU and Member State measures were inconsistent with WTO rules. This dispute 

remains unresolved. As of December 31, 2013, a large backlog of 68 applications (for approval 

of import, renewal, and cultivation) remains pending in the EU approval system, which has the 

effect of blocking U.S. exports of certain agricultural products. In 2013, the EU approved five 

products (two new approvals for import, one renewal of an approval, and two approvals of an 

extension of the scope of the use of the product) taking an average of 45 months to reach a 

decision.

The United States continues to press the EU for fundamental improvements in its regulatory 

system with the goal of normalizing trade in agricultural products derived from modern 

biotechnology.

European Union – Poultry

At the request of the United States, the WTO established a dispute settlement panel in November 

2009 to examine whether the EU’s restrictions on imports of U.S. poultry are consistent with its 

obligations under the SPS Agreement. The dispute is focused on the EU's ban on the import and 

marketing of poultry meat and poultry meat products processed with certain pathogen reduction 

treatments (PRTs) used in the United States that both U.S. and European scientists have judged 

to be safe.
18
19

III. MAJOR CROSS-CUTTING SPS ISSUES

Some U.S. food and agricultural exports are subject to similar unwarranted SPS barriers in 

multiple markets. This year’s SPS Report describes these cross-cutting trade barriers and the 

efforts the U.S. Government has made to remove them. The leading cross-cutting SPS barriers 

arise in connection with: export certification requirements, agricultural biotechnology, BSE, AI, 

and MRLs for pesticides and veterinary drugs. The individual country reports contained in 

section IV provide details on these barriers in specific markets and actions taken to address them.

Underlying these cross-cutting SPS trade barriers (and many of the other unwarranted SPS 

barriers described in section IV) is the disturbingly common failure by some U.S. trading 

partners to base their SPS measures on science, as the SPS Agreement requires. Unfortunately, 

some trading partners place other factors ahead of, or consider them together with, scientific 

principles when establishing or applying certain SPS measures. Some trading partners apply 

SPS measures with an eye toward protecting domestic products, for example, or catering to 

perceived local consumer preferences. Such practices are reflected in the debates over SPS 

standards in relevant international fora, such as discussions in Codex regarding standards for 

ractopamine, an animal drug approved for use in feed, where it is clear that certain trading 

partners consider factors other than science in imposing SPS measures.

The United States is committed to establishing SPS measures based strictly on science, 

consistent with both the letter and spirit of the SPS Agreement, and to pressing U.S. trading 

partners to do the same.

A. Export Certification Requirements

Many countries require food imports to be accompanied by a written certification from the 

producer and/or exporting country for a variety of SPS-related assurances. These assurances 

may include, for example, declarations that the products have been produced under sanitary 

conditions or in disease-free areas. In recent years, many trading partners have begun requiring 

that export certificates accompany each shipment and include burdensome and unnecessary

“attestations” that, for example, may subject imports to unwarranted or overly burdensome 

requirements, such as testing, as a condition of entry.

Such export certifications have created a significant and growing impediment to trade. The 

attestations required as part of these export certifications often appear to be scientifically 

unnecessary and, in many cases impose requirements that are inconsistent with the 

recommendations of the relevant international standard setting organizations (Codex, OIE, and 

IPPC). For example, certain importing countries require each individual food shipment to be 

accompanied by an export certification regarding the prevalence of certain animal or plant 

diseases in the exporting country even though this information is readily available on websites 

that the exporting government or an international SPS standard setting body maintains.

The United States supports the work of international standard setting bodies in establishing 

guidelines for export certifications. Guidelines of this type, such as the Codex “Principles for

Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification,” provide that certification requirements 

should be confined to eliciting information essential to meeting the objectives of the importing 
20

country’s food inspection and certification system. The Codex guidelines also call for importing 

countries to specify the reasons for requiring specific attestations to be included in export

certifications and to apply their certification requirements in a non-discriminatory manner. The 

OIE and IPPC have adopted similarly useful guidelines governing export certification 

requirements.

Many countries, however, do not observe Codex, OIE, or IPPC guidelines when they impose 

export certification requirements. Moreover, U.S. exporters often first learn that a government 

has imposed new or different certification requirements only after the exporters find that their 

shipments have been detained at the port of entry.

Following are examples of the sorts of unwarranted certification requirements certain U.S. 

trading partners impose that create unnecessary barriers to U.S. food exports:

• attestations and testing requirements that are not based on internationally accepted 

norms (e.g., attestations that shipments of certain foods are entirely free from 

Salmonella bacteria or genetically engineered ingredients).

• attestations that are not appropriate for purposes of addressing a legitimate human 

health or safety concern, such as a requirement to certify that shipments of pork and 

pork products are free from H1N1 virus, a pathogen that cannot be transmitted through 

food.

• requirements for exporters to provide information regarding U.S. surveillance programs 

for various animal diseases when the importing government has ready access to this 

information through U.S. Government and international organization websites.

• requirements for competent authorities to make attestations unrelated to SPS issues on 

an SPS official sanitary certificate.

In addition to working with the international standard setting bodies, the United States has been a 

leader in promoting work within APEC to address export certification issues. In 2010 and 2012,

the United States organized workshops on export certification for APEC members. At these 

workshops, representatives discussed common challenges arising from certification requirements 

and options to address those challenges. The United States has drafted an APEC Export 

Certificate Roadmap that promotes harmonization to relevant international standards wherever 

possible. The Roadmap seeks to identify solutions for the growing trend in export certification 

towards duplicative, redundant, unavailable, and/or unnecessary export certification 

requirements. Ultimately, the objective is to develop a “tool box” that will facilitate the 

appropriate and efficient use of export certificates. There continues to be strong support from 

APEC economies for this work. 
21

B. Biotechnology

For nearly 20 years, farmers around the world increasingly have planted crops developed through 

modern agricultural biotechnology or genetic engineering (GE) techniques. According to the 

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, the number of countries 

growing agricultural biotechnology crops has increased from six in 1996 to 27 in 2013. GE 

crops have allowed farmers to use fewer and safer pesticides while improving crop yield, as well 

as increase the use of no-till agriculture. Crops produced using agricultural biotechnology that 

are consumed in the United States for food, feed, or fiber include alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, 

papaya, soybeans, sugar beets, squash, and sweet corn. USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics 

Service estimates that in 2013, 93 percent of soybean acreage, 90 percent of corn acreage, and 90

percent of cotton acreage in the United States were planted with GE varieties. New GE crops, 

including crops with new traits, will continue to be brought to market, leading to more farmer 

acceptance and use of GE crops on the one hand, and potentially more trade challenges on the 

other.

U.S. exports of GE corn, soybeans, and other agricultural products that contain - or may contain -

GE-derived ingredients, face a multitude of trade barriers. The country-by-country section of the 

SPS Report contains numerous examples of unwarranted import bans and other restrictions 

currently being applied to U.S. biotech products. In addition, some trading partners impose 

mandatory labeling requirements on foods derived from GE products that create technical 

barriers to trade by wrongly implying that these foods are unsafe.4 Some U.S. trading partners 

have continued to impose restrictions on these products even though repeated risk assessments 

have shown no food safety concerns, and these GE products have proven safety records. 

The United States actively engages with trading partners to remove unwarranted trade barriers to 

GE products. As part of these efforts, U.S. officials have helped shape the development of 

international standards related to the safety assessment of, and trade in, agricultural 

biotechnology products. For example, the United States contributed to the establishment of 

Codex Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from 

Recombinant-DNA Plants (CODEX plant guideline) for assessing the safety of food from GE 

crops. The United States has also supported the development of annexes to the Codex plant 

guidelines containing safety assessment guidelines for nutritionally-enhanced or ‘bio-fortified’ 

GE crops, and for cases where small amounts of material from GE plants authorized in the 

exporting country are found in food products in countries that have not authorized those products

(i.e., low-level presence).

Although the United States is not a party to the United Nations Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 

which governs transboundary movement of living modified organisms (i.e., living GE plants and 

animals, including, for example, GE corn, fish, and soybeans), it regularly participates in 

meetings of the Protocol Parties and routinely organizes capacity-building efforts to promote 

science-based approaches to evaluate these organisms. The United States is also actively 

involved in regulatory and policy dialogues within APEC pertinent to the use and trade of 

products derived from agricultural biotechnology.

 4 These labeling requirements are addressed in the TBT Report.
22

C. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)

BSE is a transmissible, fatal neuro-degenerative brain disease of cattle. BSE was first diagnosed 

in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1986. At its peak in 1992, there were 37,316 reported cases of 

BSE, 99.9 percent of which were in the UK. As of January 2013, the OIE indicated that in 2013, 

the number of cases had decreased to five cases globally. The United States has had only four 

cattle test positive for BSE: an animal imported from Canada in 2003, a U.S.-born 12-year old 

animal in 2005, another 10-year old U.S.-born animal in 2006, and a U.S.-born 10-year old dairy 

cow in 2012. Importantly, all three cases of BSE detected in the U.S. born animals were 

classified as the atypical form of the disease, a very rare form of the disease not generally 

associated with an animal consuming infected feed.

The OIE

The OIE classifies the BSE risk status of cattle populations in particular countries on the basis of 

a risk assessment and other criteria. The OIE has established three risk categories: negligible 

risk, controlled risk, and undetermined risk, with different recommendations for the safe trade in 

live cattle, beef and beef products from countries in each category. In May 2013, based on a 

review of the potential release and exposure to the BSE agent, surveillance, awareness, and 

history of the disease in the United States, the OIE classified the United States as having a 

“negligible risk” status for BSE. OIE guidelines specify that negligible risk countries may safely 

trade in live cattle and beef and beef products produced from animals of any age.

U.S. BSE-Related Controls

The United States implemented an OIE-consistent feed ban in 1997, which prohibits feeding 

ruminants most mammalian-origin proteins. The U.S. feed ban was further strengthened in 2009 

by prohibiting the use of the highest risk cattle tissues in all animal feed (not just ruminant feed).

The implementation of a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban is the most important preventive step a 

country can take to protect its cattle population from BSE exposure. In 2004, the United States 

implemented BSE-related measures in U.S. slaughterhouses and meat production establishments, 

the most important of which requires removal of “specified risk materials” (SRMs). SRMs are 

those tissues (e.g., brain, spinal cord, etc.) where the BSE agent is known to accumulate and can 

therefore pose a human health risk. With respect to BSE and the BSE negligible risk status of 

the United States, all cattle tissues that the OIE has not designated as SRMs are safe for human 

consumption. As a result of these interlocking measures, beef and beef products produced in the 

United States are safe for consumption. On December 4, 2013, APHIS promulgated a final rule 

that sets out requirements that are generally consistent with OIE recommended BSE guidelines.

This final rule became effective on March 4, 2014.

Foreign Trade Barriers to U.S. Exports of Beef and Beef Products

In December 2003, as a result of the first case of BSE detected in the United States, at least 100 

countries closed their markets to all U.S. beef and beef products, causing substantial economic 

harm to the U.S. beef industry, which at the time, exported approximately ten percent of its total 

production. In 2003, U.S. producers exported $3.86 billion (1.3 million metric tons) of beef and 

beef products. The following year, as a result of the widespread import ban, U.S. exports fell by 
23

79 percent, to $808 million. Despite lower volumes, U.S. beef and beef products exports reached 

a record $ 6.16 billion in 2013.

Nevertheless, U.S. beef exporters continue to face unwarranted and burdensome BSE-related 

import restrictions, including bans by some countries of all U.S. beef and beef products, selected 

bans on certain products (e.g., bone-in and ground beef), and restrictions on U.S. beef and beef 

products produced from animals over certain ages.

Moreover, the disparity in BSE-related measures in different markets represents a separate trade 

burden and undercuts the comparative advantage of U.S. exporters. This disparity not only 

burdens producers, who must alter production and packing processes based on the requirements 

of the specific export market, but USDA, which must maintain an export verification program to 

confirm that these alterations in production and packing processes meet the relevant 

requirements. Section IV of the SPS Report identifies several countries that continue either to 

ban U.S. beef entirely or impose other OIE-inconsistent restrictions on U.S. beef products.

Some countries also maintain bans on other bovine and/or ruminant commodities (e.g., bovine 

gelatin; pet foods with bovine ingredients; bovine blood), as well as a large number of nonruminant commodities (e.g., rendered meals such as poultry or porcine meals and fishmeal; nonruminant blood products; and hydrolyzed proteins), based on unwarranted BSE-related concerns.

The United States continues to engage with its trading partners to secure the removal of these 

bans.

Restoring full access for U.S. beef and beef products based on science, the OIE guidelines, and 

the status of the United States as a controlled BSE risk country is a priority of the U.S. 

Government. The United States is continuing its efforts to negotiate bilateral protocols with 

trading partners to open their markets to U.S. beef.

D. Avian Influenza (AI)

AI is a virus that can infect wild birds and poultry. The OIE divides AI viral strains into two 

groups based on the ability of the particular virus to produce disease: low pathogenic avian 

influenza (LPAI) and highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). LPAI naturally occurs in wild 

birds and can spread to domestic birds. In many cases, LPAI causes either no, or only minor, 

symptoms in infected birds. HPAI is more virulent than LPAI and can, accordingly, spread more 

easily. HPAI infections are often fatal in certain avian species, such as chickens and turkeys.

U.S. AI-Related Controls

While there have been three minor outbreaks of HPAI in U.S. poultry since 1924, none of these 

outbreaks has caused significant human illness, and there is no evidence that HPAI currently 

exists in the United States. The success of the United States in preventing the establishment of 

HPAI can be attributed to various safeguards implemented by U.S. Federal and state 

governments. For example, Federal agencies work with states and the poultry industry to 

monitor U.S. bird populations in four key areas: live bird markets, commercial flocks, backyard 

flocks, and migratory bird populations. Inspectors conduct extensive testing in live bird markets 

and commercial flocks. In addition, any birds that show signs of illness are tested for AI.
24

Finally, Federal officials and their state and industry partners have also worked to establish an 

effective and coordinated emergency response plan that would mitigate the impact of any 

potential outbreak of HPAI in the United States. U.S. HPAI control policies are consistent with 

the relevant science-based standards, guidelines, and recommendations issued by the OIE.

Foreign Trade Barriers to U.S. Exports of Poultry and Poultry Products

Despite these measures, many countries have imposed unwarranted import bans on U.S. poultry

and poultry products based on professed concerns over AI, often citing isolated LPAI outbreaks. 

For example, China currently bans imports of poultry and poultry products from four U.S. states, 

Arkansas, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin. India maintains AI-related measures that serve 

to preclude the importation of poultry products from the entire United States. Many of these 

restrictions appear to be inconsistent with OIE guidelines, which provide recommendations on 

steps governments can take that help to ensure that poultry products can be safely traded in light 

of AI concerns.

The United States remains highly concerned about unwarranted AI-related import bans.

Removing such bans remains a high priority for the U.S. Government, and the United States has 

raised this issue with many trading partners, including China and India, in a wide range of fora.

At U.S. Government prompting, U.S. trading partners have lifted 117 AI-related bans since 

2008. Section IV of the SPS Report provides additional information on countries with 

unwarranted trade restrictions ostensibly related to AI.

E. Maximum Residue Levels for Pesticides

MRLs, known as tolerances in the United States, represent the maximum concentration of 

residues (generally expressed as parts per million or mg/kg of residue) permitted in or on food 

and animal feedstuffs after the application of approved pesticides. Governments around the 

world, including the United States, set MRLs to ensure food safety.

EPA establishes tolerances for pesticides in the United States. Under U.S. law, EPA must ensure 

a “reasonable certainty of no harm” to consumers of the food, including special consideration of 

infants and young children and other potentially vulnerable populations. All agricultural 

products produced in the United States or intended for consumption in the United States must

comply with EPA tolerances. Inspectors from the FDA and USDA monitor both domestic and 

imported food and feedstuffs to ensure that tolerances are observed.

Codex develops and maintains international standards for MRLs. The SPS Agreement 

encourages countries to base their MRLs on those that Codex has set. Nevertheless, it is not 

uncommon for countries—including the United States—to set their own, stricter MRLs. When a 

government establishes an MRL that is more stringent than the relevant Codex standard, the 

government must do so consistently with Article 3 of the SPS Agreement, which calls for the 

government to provide either a scientific justification for that stricter standard or apply the 

standard in accordance with Article 5 of the SPS Agreement.

Given the technical complexity of establishing MRLs, the United States works closely with key 

trading partners to share data and assist them in establishing their own science-based MRLs. For 
25

example, in 2011, the United States, Canada, and Mexico initiated a new NAFTA TWG on 

regional regulatory cooperation for pesticides. The TWG has focused on facilitating cost 

effective pesticide regulations in the three countries through collaboration and sharing, while 

achieving a high level of environmental and human health protection. This collaboration has 

been instrumental in reducing trade barriers and increasing access to safer means of pest control 

in all three markets.

As discussed in the country reports that follow, various countries have either set pesticide MRLs 

at unreasonably low thresholds, have failed to establish a MRL for certain pesticides that have 

established Codex or U.S. MRLs, or have a significant backlog of reviews for newer, safer 

pesticides. This situation has created significant trade barriers for U.S. horticultural exports. 

MRL enforcement policies in the EU, Japan, and Taiwan are of particular concern.

Increasingly, countries are working to establish their own positive lists of approved pesticides. 

The United States believes that the creation of positive pesticide MRL lists or systems that are 

based on the Codex standards are best suited to facilitate trade. However, positive list systems 

require a significant amount of data, staff training, and financial resources. In most cases, many 

years are required for a country to establish credible and transparent MRL regimes and 

enforcement programs. The United States works closely with its trading partners to jointly 

establish pesticide tolerances where appropriate. To ensure against trade disruptions while a 

pesticide is under evaluation, U.S. authorities often ask countries to adopt Codex MRLs on an 

interim basis until their permanent MRLs are established. If countries are unwilling to adopt the 

Codex MRLs or to defer to the scientifically based U.S. MRL in the interim, U.S. growers could 

be subject to onerous penalties and serious trade barriers for using pesticides that have been 

established as safe to use under prescribed conditions.

Similarly, FDA establishes tolerances for veterinary drugs in the United States. USDA enforces 

the FDA tolerances for veterinary drugs on both domestic and imported products. The United 

States is an active participant in the respective Codex committees for pesticides and veterinary 

drugs and supports the use of international standards to help address MRL-related trade issues.

The U.S. regulatory authorities also provide technical assistance and participate in various fora 

intended to foster collaboration and harmonization of requirements related to MRLs.
26
27

IV. COUNTRY REPORTS

This section sets out specific SPS concerns in reports on individual countries. The issues 

discussed in this section are the subject of U.S. Government engagement with U.S. stakeholders 

concerning unwarranted SPS barriers that U.S. exporters have encountered in these countries. 

The selection of barriers for discussion in this report reflects a considered process that is based 

on the U.S. Government’s understanding of those barriers. They raise significant trade concerns 

and, in some instances, give rise to questions concerning whether a trading partner is complying 

with its obligations under a trade agreement to which the United States is a party.5

The U.S. goal is to work as vigorously and expeditiously as possible to resolve the concerns 

identified in this section. The tools the U.S. Government uses vary depending on the particular 

facts and circumstances. In many instances, the U.S. Government seeks to resolve specific 

concerns through dialogue with the pertinent trading partner – either bilaterally or through 

multilateral fora – and by working collaboratively to obtain changes that result in improved 

market access for U.S. exporters. In appropriate instances, dispute settlement under the WTO or 

in another relevant forum can be a tool to address specific concerns.

In response to USTR’s outreach in compiling this report, U.S. stakeholders raised a number of 

new SPS concerns. Stakeholders should not view the absence of an issue in the report as an 

indication that USTR, and more broadly the U.S. Government, does not believe the concerns are 

significant; it may simply reflect the fact that other Federal agencies are working to resolve the

matter directly with their counterpart foreign ministries. It may also mean that USTR requires 

additional consultations or information to consider. For those issues, USTR will seek to compile 

additional information, including by following up with stakeholders, U.S. embassies, and other 

Federal agencies.

The SPS Report provides more focused and structured reporting on country-specific issues than 

appeared in past years’ NTE Report, which may have included SPS issues that USTR has not 

included in this report. Where possible, each listing sets out the United States’ current 

understanding of the measure or practice, why it raises concerns, and how the United States is 

seeking to address it. The SPS Report is not simply a recounting of all outstanding issues that 

stakeholders have brought to USTR’s attention this year or in the past. For purposes of this 

report, USTR included measures that represent significant and unwarranted SPS barriers to U.S. 

exports and that the U.S. Government has devoted substantial resources to resolving. 

Regardless, the U.S. Government continues to gather information, and follow all concerns 

affecting U.S. stakeholders and pursue those issues as appropriate.

Finally, much of the U.S. Government’s engagement in international and regional fora focuses 

on those trade-restrictive SPS measures that recur in a number of markets. Five of these 

measures are described in section III of this report. The U.S. Government adopts a strategic 

approach to measures of this kind, deploying resources where they can be most effective. In 

some instances, the U.S. Government elects to focus its efforts on a few countries where the 

 5 Nothing in this report should be construed as a legal determination that a measure included in the report falls within

the scope of any particular WTO Agreement (e.g., whether the measure is subject to the SPS Agreement as opposed

to the TBT Agreement).
28

concern is the greatest. In other instances, the U.S. Government seeks to work with those 

countries with which the matter can be resolved most expeditiously or where engagement on the 

issue would produce maximum benefit for the United States and U.S. stakeholders.

ARGENTINA

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Argentina bans imports of all U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products due to BSE‐related 

concerns following the detection of a BSE- positive animal in the United States in 2003. In 

November 2010, Argentina issued a final regulation regarding BSE and the importation of 

bovine products, but the new regulation did not correct many of the unwarranted restrictions in 

force previously, nor did it allow for the import of U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products. The 

United States will continue to urge Argentina to open its market fully to U.S. beef and beef 

products based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ BSE negligible risk status.

Animal Health

Pork 

Currently, U.S. pork does not have access into Argentina. Argentina has indicated that for the 

United States to be approved to export pork to Argentina, U.S. pork must either be shipped 

frozen or tested for trichinosis. The United States does not consider these requirements to be 

necessary as U.S. producers maintain stringent biosecurity protocols that serve to limit the 

appearance of trichinae in the United States to extremely low levels. Discussions between the 

United States and Argentina on access to the pork market began in 2011, after years of impasse. 

In October 2012, the United States provided the necessary information to Argentine authorities 

to complete a risk assessment process. Argentine authorities continue to review the U.S. 

response. Further actions are anticipated throughout 2014, including an audit of the U.S. system 

by Argentine authorities and negotiation of an export certificate. 

Poultry

While U.S. exporters currently have access to Argentina’s market for certain miscellaneous 

poultry products, including day‐old chicks and hatching eggs, Argentina does not allow imports 

of fresh, frozen, and chilled poultry from the United States due to concerns over AI and Exotic 

Newcastle Disease. Argentina has promulgated new rules that reaffirm the current import 

restrictions when there are findings of AI or Exotic Newcastle Disease (END) in the exporting 

country. However, there are no incidents of END or HPAI in the United States. Argentina has 

indicated that it would accept cooked poultry products from the United States, but there is no 

agreement yet on what the U.S. sanitary certificate will state, as Argentina has determined that 

the U.S. poultry inspection system is not “equivalent” to the Argentine system. 

See section III.D for an explanation of the AI trade issue.
29

Plant Health

Apples and Pears

Since 2009, Argentina has blocked imports of U.S. apples and pears due to concerns about the 

efficacy of post-harvest treatments for Erwinia amylovora (the bacterium that causes fire blight). 

The United States has submitted technical information to Argentine plant health officials 

documenting that there is no evidence that mature, symptomless apple and pear fruit transmit fire 

blight. The United States will continue to work with Argentine officials to address the issue and 

reinstate the issuance of permits for importation. 

The U.S. industry has stated in the past that they believe Argentina would be a small but good 

market for U.S. apples and pears during Argentina’s off-season. However, the Argentine fruit 

industry has recently improved its cold storage capacity and has expanded its marketing season. 

We see a potential market of $1 million annually for both apples (70 percent share) and pears (30 

percent share) during Argentina’s off season.

AUSTRALIA

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Australia currently restricts the importation of bovine products from countries that have reported 

one or more indigenous cases of BSE. In March 2010, Australia modified its food safety import 

policies to allow imports of beef and beef products from countries that have had BSE cases. 

Under these requirements Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), a regional food 

safety agency, conducts an individual country risk assessment. In August 2013, an audit team 

from FSANZ conducted an inspection of U.S. production and processing facilities, and the 

United States is reviewing the draft report from that inspection. In addition to the FSANZ 

review, Biosecurity Australia conducts a separate import risk analysis for each exporting country 

to address animal quarantine issues. The United States submitted a completed BSE-related 

questionnaire in June 2010 and hosted a visit by an Australian official in July 2010 to discuss 

Australia’s BSE evaluation process. Biosecurity Australia has not yet concluded its risk 

assessment for U.S. beef and beef products. 

The United States will continue to urge Australia to open its market fully to U.S. beef and beef 

products based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ BSE negligible risk status.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Animal Health

Pork

Access for U.S. pork to Australia is limited to frozen, boneless pork due to concerns about the 

introduction of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) and post‐weaning 
30

multisystemic wasting syndrome (PMWS). The United States has requested that Australia 

remove unwarranted PRRS and PMWS related restrictions to allow importation of all U.S. pork 

products. Citing these diseases, Australia also requires that all solid waste from pork imports, 

regardless of whether the pork is cooked or uncooked, be treated as a quarantine waste product. 

The new requirements have unnecessarily raised the costs of handling imported pork.

Poultry

Australia bars imports of fresh, frozen, and cooked poultry meat, including turkey meat from the 

United States. In 2009, the United States requested Australia to prioritize granting market access 

for U.S. cooked turkey meat. In 2012 Australia initiated an evaluation of U.S. cooked turkey 

meat to assess the existence of a virus that causes Infectious Bursal Disease. In a letter dated 

July 15, 2013, APHIS Veterinary Services provided Australia with information about the U.S. 

turkey industry and the National Poultry Improvement Plan, as well as requested data about the 

status of certain turkey diseases in the United States. Australia has not requested any additional 

information. 

The United States will continue to work with Australia on any technical issues and will continue 

to press for progress on this issue. 

Plant Health

Apples

Australia currently prohibits the importation of apples from the United States based on concerns 

about fire blight, a contagious, bacterial disease which can infect apples, pears, and other 

rosaceous plants. For more than 15 years, the U.S. Government and the U.S. apple industry have 

engaged with Australian officials to demonstrate that U.S. mature, symptomless apples pose no 

risk of transmission of fire blight. In October 2009, Australia published a pest risk assessment

(PRA) for apples from the United States and identified three additional fungal pathogens of

concern to Australian regulatory authorities. Research is currently being conducted by USDA to

address Australia’s concern about the three fungal pathogens. The PRA also includes overly

restrictive fire blight mitigation measures. If the PRA is approved as currently drafted, it will 

continue to prevent the commercial export of U.S. apples to Australia.

New Zealand requested a WTO panel in 2007 claiming that Australia’s measures regarding the 

importation of New Zealand apples, including Australia’s mitigation measures for fire blight, 

were not based on a risk assessment in compliance with the WTO SPS Agreement. The United 

States was an active third party in support of New Zealand in the case. In August 2010, a WTO 

panel ruled in favor of New Zealand. In December 2010, the WTO Appellate Body largely 

upheld the panel’s findings. Apples from New Zealand are now authorized for importation into 

Australia. The United States continues to monitor Australia’s ongoing PRA process regarding 

U.S. apples in light of the WTO rulings and recommendations in this case.
31

Pears

Australia currently prohibits the importation of pears from the United States due to the bacterial 

disease fire blight caused by the bacteria Erwinia amylovora. Australia has claimed that the 

disease might be transmitted to its domestic apple and pear crops. However, the United States 

has provided significant amounts of evidence to Australia demonstrating that mature, 

symptomless pears do not support populations of the fire blight bacteria and are not part of the 

pathway. 

Seeds 

For viruses associated with tomato and pepper seed, Australia has excessive testing requirements 

based on large sample (30,000 seeds) sizes. These tests are very expensive, time consuming, and 

the large sample sizes result in significant financial loss as these seeds are very high value. 

Many U.S. seed companies cannot meet these excessive phytosanitary requirements, and trade is 

being unnecessarily restricted. 

Table Grapes

In 2010, Australia raised concerns regarding spotted wing drosophila (SWD) Drosophila suzukii,

a species of fruit fly on table grapes from California. Australia requires a carbon dioxide/sulfur 

dioxide treatment plus a cold treatment to address SWD, despite the fact that SWD has never 

been found on California table grapes either before or since 2010 and despite no interceptions 

during pre-clearance inspections by Australian quarantine officials. In October 2013, USDA 

submitted new research to Australia on a revised cold treatment protocol for California table 

grapes. Other phytosanitary issues of importance include onerous pre-inspection requirements 

prior to shipping and access for table grapes from San Luis Obispo County. The United States 

will continue to work with Australian officials at the technical level to address these concerns. 

BAHRAIN

Food Safety

Pork

Bahrain instituted a ban on U.S. pork exports from several U.S. states due to concerns regarding 

the H1N1 virus, even though there is no evidence to indicate that the virus can be conveyed to 

humans through the consumption of pork. The WTO, OIE, and FAO issued statements shortly 

after the H1N1 outbreak reminding countries that import bans on pork based on H1N1 concerns 

are unjustified in light of this fact. The United States will continue to request that Bahrain 

provide official notification that the ban has been lifted.
32

BANGLADESH

Plant Health

Cotton

Bangladesh requires double fumigation at the port of loading and unloading out of concern over 

the possible presence of boll weevil. The United States has raised its concern that double 

fumigation is unnecessary with the government of Bangladesh on numerous occasions including 

at the Partnership Dialogue in May 2013. USDA estimates that if this measure were to be 

removed, it would allow for an increase in trade of $10 million. 

BOLIVIA

Food Safety and Animal Health

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Bolivia continues to ban imports of all U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products due to BSE‐

related concerns following the detection of a BSE-positive animal in the United States in 2003. 

In 2009, the United States submitted comments on a proposed Andean Community (CAN) risk 

assessment, which stipulated that only live animals under 24 months of age could be imported. 

A CAN resolution, published on April 13, 2010, stipulated that CAN Member States could 

establish their own requirements for imports of U.S. live cattle in accordance with the CAN risk 

assessment. The United States will continue to urge Bolivia to open its market fully to U.S. beef 

and beef products based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ BSE negligible 

risk status.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Agricultural Biotechnology

Since Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) passed the Food Law of November 2004, GE products 

have not been permitted into BiH. A biosafety law passed in 2009 permitting the importation of 

licensed GE products. However, it took more than three years for BiH’s Council of Ministers to 

adopt five implementing rules that establish procedures to import and market agricultural 

biotechnology products. BiH has not issued the regulation that describes the process for 

approving cultivation of agricultural biotechnology products. BiH is a potential candidate for 

EU accession, and these regulations are similar to EU regulations. BiH’s anti-biotechnology

position has impeded U.S. commercial exports, and the BiH government has opposed import of

biotech corn and soybean food assistance shipments.
33

Almonds 

BiH recently introduced a new requirement relating to aflatoxin levels – “Decision on Special 

Conditions for the Import of Foodstuffs from Certain Countries Regarding the Risk of 

Contamination with Aflatoxin" – which requires that almonds and nut and dried fruit mixes from 

the United States be tested for aflatoxin content and certified by USDA. According to this new 

requirement, the certificate for U.S. shipments is to be issued under a Voluntary Aflatoxin 

Sampling Plan and the laboratory test results on aflatoxin content must be included. USDA is 

working with BiH’s Food Safety Agency to reconsider this new requirement for U.S. almonds, 

given the negligible risk that they represent. 

BRAZIL

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Brazil bans imports of U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products following the detection of a BSEpositive animal in the United States in 2003. In 2013, Brazil modified their import regulations, 

establishing a new regulatory pathway to allow imports of U.S. beef and beef products. For U.S. 

beef and beef products, the new pathway will require a bilateral agreement establishing 

conditions for import. On December 10, 2013, Brazil issued final sanitary import requirements 

for beef and beef products. The United States continues to work with Brazil to negotiate the 

necessary bilateral agreement open its market fully to U.S. beef and beef products based on 

science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ BSE negligible risk status.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Pork

Brazil only allows imports of U.S. pork from establishments that its inspectors have individually 

inspected and approved. This approach is burdensome on the industry and significantly limits 

the market access of companies willing and able to export to Brazil. Brazil has not explained 

why an establishment by establishment inspection and approval system is required rather than 

the systems‐based approach recommended by the WTO and used in FSIS’ ongoing system 

equivalence process. The United States continues to discuss this issue with Brazil.

Brazil also restricts imports of pork and pork products from the United States, citing the risk of 

trichinosis. Currently, fresh U.S. pork can be imported into Brazil only if the product is tested to 

be free of trichinae or if the risk is otherwise mitigated (e.g., by cooking). The United States 

does not consider these requirements for trichinosis to be necessary as U.S. producers maintain 

stringent biosecurity protocols that serve to limit the presence of trichinae in the United States to 

extremely low levels in commercial swine. 

The United States will continue to engage Brazilian authorities to address these restrictions. 
34

Plant Health

Planting Seeds

In December 2010, Brazil’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA) 

published Normative Instruction 36 (Norma 36), a regulation establishing burdensome and 

extensive treatments and seed testing requirements for the importation of 118 seed species into 

Brazil. Following coordinated engagement by the U.S. Government, the U.S. seed industry, and 

other trading partners of Brazil, MAPA amended Norma 36 in February 2011, allowing for 

inspection of seed fields instead of laboratory testing as originally described in the regulation. 

MAPA has postponed the implementation of additional declarations, which were of concern to 

trading partners, while it developed the pest list for each species of seed. On May 10, 2012, 

MAPA notified the WTO of the modified regulation with a list of pests associated with the 

regulated seeds (now reduced to 69 seed species). Brazil provided for a comment period of 60 

days. APHIS submitted comments and concerns on July 6, 2012. On October 30, 2012, MAPA 

published the Normative Instruction 24-2012, which postponed the enforcement of the additional 

declarations established by Norma 36 for another year, until December 1, 2013, to provide 

MAPA time to finish reviewing the comments it received. In September 2013, Brazil released 

another version of this proposed rule and recently extended the comment period until April 1, 

2014. MAPA has also postponed the implementation of additional declarations, which were of 

concern to trading partners. A new version of the normative instruction, which associates seed 

species from each exporting country with pests of concern to Brazil, was communicated to trade 

partners on October 2013. 

CHILE

Food Safety

Pork

Chile requires pork produced in the United States to be shipped frozen or tested for trichinosis. 

Chile’s requirements constitute a significant impediment to U.S. fresh and chilled pork exports to 

Chile. The United States does not consider these requirements to be necessary as U.S. producers 

maintain stringent biosecurity protocols that serve to limit the presence of trichinae in the United 

States to extremely low levels in commercial swine. As an alternative, the United States 

proposed less trade restrictive risk mitigation measures to assure Chile that U.S. pork exports do 

not contain trichinae. According to USDA estimates, removal of these requirements could result 

in a gain of $25-$100 million annually. The United States has raised this issue on the margins of 

the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) SPS negotiations on numerous occasions as well as in high 

level bilateral meetings and will continue to work with Chile to resolve this trade concern.

Live Cattle

Chile bans imports of U.S. live cattle following the detection of a BSE-positive animal in the 

United States in 2003, despite its long standing commitment to adhere fully to OIE guidelines. 

The United States raised this issue on numerous occasions in 2013, including during technical 

discussions and high level official visits. The United States will continue to urge Chile to open 
35

its market fully to U.S. live cattle based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ 

BSE negligible risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Salmonid Eggs

On July 14, 2010, Chile’s Ministry of Fisheries, SERNAPESCA, suspended imports of salmonid 

species from all countries, including the United States, due to Chile’s revised import regulations 

for aquatic animals, including salmonid eggs. Under the new regulations, U.S. industry can no 

longer export salmonid eggs into Chile under any conditions until SERNAPESCA completes a 

risk analysis of aquatic animal imports and an on-site audit of APHIS’ oversight of aquatic 

animal exports and U.S. salmonid egg production sites. An audit was conducted in December 

2011 on USDA’s oversight of U.S. salmonid egg production sites in Washington and Maine. 

The United States had understood that the audit of Washington State was successful and that 

trade from that state could resume by the end of summer 2012. However, SERNAPESCA later 

informed USDA that additional information would be required to document the strength of the 

national surveillance program. USDA sent comments on SERNAPESCA’s risk assessment in 

May 2013 and another communication to SERNAPESCA in August 2013. In August, 

SERNAPESCA added a new disease, Totivirus, which is not an OIE listed disease, to the list of 

diseases not present in Chile. As a result of this addition, SERNAPESCA suspended imports of 

all salmonid eggs from the United States, until an additional risk assessment is complete for this 

disease. USDA is currently preparing a response to SERNAPESCA’s October 2013 

communication on the risk assessment and additional information requested on the new disease. 

Market access for products from the state of Maine is also pending the resolution of technical 

concerns raised by Chile. 

This issue has been raised on the margins of the TPP SPS negotiations on numerous occasions, 

as well as in technical discussions and high level official visits. While Chile has expressed an 

interest in working with the United States to resolve this issue through continuing review of U.S. 

and state surveillance programs, it has also recommended that the states of Washington and 

Maine apply for equivalence determinations. However, such determinations would be time 

consuming and appear to be unwarranted given that Chile has yet to identify a specific health 

concern relevant to U.S. products.

Plant Health

Table Grapes

In September 2011, Chile issued new provisional phytosanitary requirements for potential 

imported hosts of SWD, including U.S. table grapes, which require a methyl bromide fumigation 

or cold treatment. These restrictions continue to apply. APHIS has been working with Chile’s 

Ministry of Agriculture to eliminate these restrictive treatment measures. SWD is not of 

quarantine concern for the United States, has never been intercepted in shipments destined to 

Chile originating from the United States, and is being controlled in place by industry’s best 

management practices. As commercially produced table grapes are not a suitable host to SWD, 

USDA is pursuing elimination of Chile’s emergency measures, has been working with 
36

California’s table grape industry, and is presenting options to the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture

to eliminate these provisional SWD measures.

To address Chile's provisional phytosanitary requirements on SWD, in May 2013, USDA 

proposed a protocol to Chile for consideration as a phytosanitary option to mitigate SWD. Chile 

responded to USDA in January 2014, and stated it will maintain its current treatment

requirement restrictions for SWD (as well as for Light Brown Apple Moth regulated areas), and 

requested further information from the United States on these issues. The United States will 

continue to work with Chilean officials to resolve these issues.

CHINA

Agricultural Biotechnology

Under Chinese regulations, an agricultural biotechnology product developed in a foreign country 

must first be approved for use in that country before Chinese authorities will begin to consider 

approving the product for use in China. The United States is concerned that such a practice is 

creating significant and unwarranted delays in China’s approval of agricultural biotechnology 

products. Such delays related to one biotech product resulted in substantial disruptions of U.S. 

corn exports in late 2013.

Post-application delays in the approval of biotech products have also increased. Approvals have 

slowed for both field trials of biotech products and for products in final stage of approval. The 

United States continues to raise both of these issues with China.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

Food Safety

Ractopamine

China bans imports of pork containing any residue of ractopamine, an animal drug approved for 

use in feed that promotes feed efficiency in pigs and certain other livestock. China maintains 

this ban despite U.S. government approval, the establishment of a Codex standard, and scientific

evidence indicating that ractopamine can be used safely. China has enforced this ban by barring

imports that contained trace amounts of ractopamine from several U.S. facilities that previously

shipped pork to China. The United States strongly disagrees with China’s assertions that there 

are serious concerns about the safety of ractopamine. China has not responded to repeated U.S. 

Government requests for risk assessments that support such concerns.

In July 2012, Codex adopted MRLs for ractopamine use in pigs and cattle. The United States 

continues to press China on this issue in bilateral and multilateral fora. In 2013, China’s 

implemented new testing requirements for U.S. pork exports to China, requiring that pork be 

accompanied by a test certificate showing that the meat is free from ractopamine residues. China 

is now testing pork at port, and holding shipments that were not free of residues of ractopamine, 

tetracycline, and sulfa drugs. USTR continues to work with USDA and industry to address these 

issues.
37

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

In December 2003, China imposed a ban on U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products due to the 

detection of a BSE-positive animal in the United States in 2003. Since that time, the United 

States has repeatedly provided China with extensive technical information on all aspects of U.S. 

BSE‐related surveillance and mitigation measures, which the OIE has recognized as effective 

and appropriate, for both food safety and animal health.

At the end of June 2006, after three inconclusive rounds of negotiations, China’s food safety 

regulators unilaterally announced a limited market opening, restricted to the entry of U.S. 

deboned beef from animals 30 months of age or less. One month later, however, China followed 

that announcement with a more detailed measure setting out 22 conditions for entry, many of 

which were unrelated to the risk posed by BSE. The cumulative effect of these restrictions is 

that the market remains closed to U.S. beef and beef products.

The United States and China have continued to engage at senior and technical levels in 2013, 

including a visit to Beijing by U.S. regulators to meet with their Chinese counterparts in 

December 2013. During the meeting of the Joint Commission for Commerce and Trade (JCCT) 

that same month, the United States and China agreed to strive for the resumption of U.S. beef 

access by July 2014 on the basis of mutually agreed conditions. The United States will continue 

to urge China to open its market fully to U.S. beef and beef products based on science, the OIE 

guidelines, and the United States’ BSE negligible risk status.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Meat and Poultry

China has imposed a zero tolerance limit for the presence of Salmonella, Listeria

Monocytogenes, and other pathogens in imported raw meat and poultry. Such a standard is 

unwarranted, because it is generally accepted by food safety experts and scientists that pathogens 

that are closely associated with raw meat and poultry products, such as Salmonella, cannot be 

entirely eliminated and that proper storage, handling, and cooking of raw meat and poultry

reduce significantly the risk of the number of food‐borne diseases caused by these microbes. In 

2009, China’s regulatory authorities assured the United States that they were in the process of

revising China’s standards for Salmonella in poultry, but they have yet to do so. The United 

States continues to engage China on this issue.

Processed Meat Products

In May 2012, U.S. processed meat manufacturers informed USDA that China’s Customs, 

Inspection, and Quarantine officials had detained imports of processed meat products (sausages 

and rendered chicken fat) without notifying U.S. authorities of any specific concerns. In August 

2012, China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine 

(AQSIQ) notified USDA that the agreement under which U.S. producers had been shipping

processed and unprocessed meat products to China applied only to unprocessed meat and not to 

processed meat, and U.S. producers would now be required to register with AQSIQ before

shipping processed meat to China, allegedly to address unspecified food safety issues.
38

The United States does not consider the products in question to pose food safety concerns, but 

China continues to detain processed meat products if they are shipped without registration of the 

producer. Due to the uncertainty of regulations in China, U.S. producers sharply reduced 

processed meat exports and are looking for clear guidance regarding China’s import 

requirements. The United States will continue to seek resolution of this issue with China.

Wine and Distilled Spirits

In January 2013, AQSIQ notified importers that, effective February 1, 2013, mandatory 

laboratory testing for the presence of certain phthalates in wines and distilled spirits would be 

required before imports could be released into the market. China did not notify the new 

requirements to the WTO, and due to the short lead time, a number of shipments were held up at 

Chinese ports pending completion of the newly-required tests. 

Each port, through the local inspection agency, is interpreting the new requirements differently 

and test methods and procedures continue to vary from port-to-port. Although the port of 

Shanghai has eased the requirements applicable to repeat shipments of certain brands, importers 

are still required to submit test results before customs clearance. Other ports have not similarly 

adjusted their procedures to ease the burden on imports. China has signaled that the new testing 

requirements will remain until China completes a comprehensive, nation-wide risk assessment. 

Animal Health

Bovine Products

China has banned U.S. exports of protein‐free tallow due to BSE‐related concerns following the 

detection of a BSE-positive animal in the United States in 2003. China’s protein‐free 

requirement is difficult to comply with and appears inconsistent with the OIE guidelines, which 

allow for trade in tallow with maximum level of insoluble impurities of 0.15 percent in weight, 

regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country. In August 2010, Chinese officials 

announced that China was prepared to open its market to U.S.‐origin tallow. Subsequent 

discussions and an AQSIQ delegation visit to evaluate industry in 2012 have resolved some of 

the disagreements on entry and certification requirements. However, the United States and 

China still have not reached a final agreement. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Poultry

China lifted the ban on poultry imports from Arkansas for two months in 2013, but reissued the 

ban following an LPAI detection. China continues to ban poultry and poultry products from 

Arkansas, Virginia, New York, and Wisconsin (or transshipped through those states) based on 

reported detections of LPAI in those states. China’s current AI-related import bans appear not to 

be science-based or consistent with OIE guidelines. 
39

During bilateral meetings in 2013, including JCCT working group meetings, China stated that it 

is continuing to look into this trade issue.

See section III.D for an explanation of the AI trade issue.

Plant Health

Apples

Since 1995 China has only allowed imports of two varieties of U.S.‐origin apples from three 

states (Idaho, Oregon, and Washington). Other varieties of apples have not been authorized due 

to pest-related concerns especially with regard to the bacterial disease fire blight. In March 

2000, U.S. officials requested AQSIQ to allow imports of additional apple varieties from those 

states and to permit imports of apples from a fourth state, California. As part of this request, 

U.S. authorities provided China with a substantial amount of peer‐reviewed scientific 

information indicating that there is no evidence that mature, symptomless commercial apples can 

transmit fire blight. However, China continues to cite concerns about fire blight and several 

fungal pathogens as a reason for not approving additional apple varieties from the three approved 

states. AQSIQ finally provided the results of its risk assessment to the United States in October 

2013. The United States is currently reviewing this document and will respond to AQSIQ in the 

near term. Additionally, in 2012 China suspended imports of apples from Washington due to 

concerns regarding three fungal pathogens.

Discussions are ongoing regarding the development of a mutually acceptable pest list to support 

the U.S. access request for additional apple varieties and to address China’s quarantine concerns 

about apples from the state of Washington.

Avocados

China prohibits imports of California fresh avocados. In 2005, the United States submitted a 

formal written request to AQSIQ to complete a PRA and allow entry for California-origin 

avocados. Despite persistent U.S. government efforts over an eight-year period to open the 

Chinese market for California avocados, including by providing a pest list to China in 2005, 

China has not completed a PRA.

In June 2013, AQSIQ finally told U.S. government officials that a PRA for California avocados 

would be completed by a provincial entity in Guangdong, but no information has been 

forthcoming from China regarding progress on the PRA. The United States will continue to urge 

China to address this issue. 

Potatoes

China has not permitted imports of U.S.‐origin table stock potatoes based on concerns over 

various plant pests and diseases. In 2000, the United States officially requested China to allow 

imports of fresh potatoes from Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The United States has been 

waiting for AQSIQ to share the results of its risk assessment. In October 2013, AQSIQ provided 

to USDA its PRA for U.S. fresh table stock potatoes from the Pacific Northwest. While this is a 
40

long awaited step forward in the fresh potato market access request, significant work still needs 

to be done prior to opening the market. The United States continues to engage China on this 

issue in a variety of bilateral and multilateral fora.

Strawberries

The United States is seeking to establish permanent market access to China for California 

strawberries. In 2008, AQSIQ allowed California strawberries to be imported for the Olympic 

and Paralympic Games in Beijing. At that time, Chinese authorities acknowledged that 

California strawberries were safe. However, USDA has since sought permanent access, and 

while China has not provided any scientific justifications for its delay, a decision on permanent 

access has not been granted.

Wheat

Despite a 1999 bilateral agricultural cooperation agreement between China and the United States 

regarding tilletia controversa Kuhn (TCK) and Karnal bunt (KB), China maintains restrictive 

quarantine requirements on U.S. winter wheat. The agreement specifically allows discharge of 

vessels with U.S. wheat at any port in China with expeditious delivery to buyers and processors 

without additional treatment. 

In southern Chinese ports, U.S. winter wheat must discharge at one designated port and a 

cleaning fee is assessed. Although market values for U.S. winter wheat classes often are 

competitive with other origins, including Chinese domestic wheat, importers have limited

purchases because of potential discharge issues and the additional costs and burden to re-ship 

wheat from the cleaning facility.

COLOMBIA

Animal Health

Live Cattle

Colombia continues to ban U.S. live cattle due to BSE‐related concerns following the detection 

of a BSE-positive animal in the United States in 2003. In 2009, the United States submitted 

comments to CAN on a proposed risk assessment, which stipulated that only live animals less 

than 24 months of age could be imported. A CAN resolution, published April 13, 2010, 

stipulated that CAN Member States could establish their own requirements for imports of U.S. 

live cattle in accordance with the CAN risk assessment.

In June 2010, Colombia nominally allowed live cattle imports from the United States, but at the 

same time imposed such restrictive requirements that they effectively prevented any such 

imports. In January 2011, USDA proposed a protocol to Colombia that covers trade in live cattle 

as well as provided further comments to Colombia regarding its requirements. The issue was 

discussed at the first meeting of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement 

(CTPA) SPS Committee in November 2012. The United States will continue to urge Columbia 
41

to open its market fully to cattle, U.S. beef and beef products based on science, the OIE 

guidelines, and the United States’ negligible risk status.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

COSTA RICA

Potatoes

In September 2013, Costa Rica banned the import of U.S. fresh potatoes allegedly due to excess 

soil in some shipments and the presence of zebra chip, a disease that causes striping of potatoes. 

To date, Costa Rica has not provided details of the zebra chip identification or testing methods. 

The United States requested this data since the potato shipments in question had followed the 

zebra chip protocol, and found free from zebra chip when returned to the United States and 

tested by a laboratory at Oregon State University. Moreover, according to industry experts, the 

shipments were destined for immediate processing into potato chips and posed no quarantine 

threat to Costa Rica, even if the pathogen had been present. 

To further compound the unpredictability of exporting potatoes to Costa Rica, the Costa Rican 

government a week later rejected a newly arrived shipment for a pesticide residue violation. 

Pesticide records clearly show that not only was the pesticide in question not applied to the fields 

from which the potatoes originated, it had not been applied in the region for the last several 

years. U.S. embassy officials in Costa Rica stated they had never heard of a pesticide residue 

rejection of a shipment of U.S. produce in Costa Rica previously. The United States will 

continue to engage with the Government of Costa Rica to resolve these issues. 

ECUADOR

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Ecuador continues to ban imports of all U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products following the

detection of a BSE-positive animal in the United States in 2003. Ecuador and the other three 

CAN Member States (Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru) maintained that CAN rules prevented them

from lifting their BSE‐related restrictions.

USDA officials continued to raise this issue with the Ecuadorian authorities in 2013. In March 

2014, these efforts resulted in a favorable answer from Ecuador in which it accepted the protocol 

proposed by USDA to open the market for U.S. beef and beef products. The United States will 

continue to urge Ecuador to open its market fully to U.S. cattle based on science, the OIE 

guidelines, and the United States’ negligible risk status.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.
42

EGYPT

Food Safety

Dioxin 

From February 10 thru August 30, 2013, Egypt implemented a requirement that 100 percent of 

all U.S.-origin beef liver and offal imports had to be sampled and tested for dioxin. This action 

came after a number of U.S.-origin beef liver shipments allegedly exceeded Egypt’s permissible 

level for dioxin. Prior to this period, the government of Egypt’s sampling and testing 

requirement was only five percent. Egypt subsequently reduced sampling and testing to 50 

percent in August 2013 after the Ministry of Health’s Food Safety High Committee revised its 

requirements based on a three month period of shipments that met Egypt’s MRLs. The United 

States is concerned with the length of time needed for testing, the reliability and capability of the 

local testing laboratory, and the high costs associated with this testing. The mandatory testing 

program of beef livers and offals is disrupting trade and could potentially shut the United States 

out of the market. Egypt does not test domestic beef and beef products for dioxin. 

Animal Growth Promotants

Egypt’s Ministry of Industry and Foreign Trade Ministerial Decree 266 (2011) adopted the 

European Economic Commission Regulation 2377 (1990), which sets MRLs for veterinary

medicinal products, including animal growth promotants, in foodstuffs of animal origin. Egypt’s 

implementation of the EU’s ban on utilization of animal growth promotants threatens to 

jeopardize the $217 million market for U.S. beef and variety meats. Throughout 2013, the 

United States worked with other trading partners to urge Egypt to rescind this decree. The 

United States will continue to engage with Egypt on this issue.

Plant Health

Seed Potatoes

Egypt is one of the last of the world’s larger seed potato importers that bans imports of most 

varieties of U.S. seed potatoes due to phytosanitary concerns regarding Ralstonia (brown rot). 

The United States considers that the U.S. seed certification process effectively mitigates 

Ralstonia, and USDA has informed Egypt of that. Nevertheless, Egypt requires registered 

varieties to undergo mandatory field trials for three seasons, as well as compliance with a host of 

other plant quarantine conditions. The United States has urged Egypt to develop a mutually 

agreeable work plan for conducting the field trials to address their concerns and facilitate 

commercial shipments of U.S. seed potatoes to Egypt.

Wheat

In 2010, Egypt's Central Administration for Plant Quarantine (CAPQ) of the Ministry of 

Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR) imposed a zero tolerance policy for the presence of 

Ambrosia (ragweed) in wheat imports, although one or more varieties of Ambrosia are present in 

all major wheat exporting countries, including in Egypt. CAPQ and the General Authority for 
43

Supply of Commodities, Egypt’s state wheat buyer, later modified the restriction to provide that 

all wheat imports must be “free of Ambrosia seeds.” No other country that imports U.S. wheat 

imposes a restriction of this kind. If Ambrosia seeds are detected in a shipment, CAPQ permits 

the wheat cargos to be discharged and cleaned. However, exporters and importers face the risk 

that shipments could be rejected because of this restriction. The U.S. Government and U.S. 

industry are working together to convince CAPQ to remove this unnecessary restriction.

Cotton

On March 18, 2012, MALR signed Decree 438 lifting the import ban on cotton from all origins 

that was originally imposed on October 25, 2011, by Decree 1864. However, the March decree 

was abrogated on technicalities by a ruling in Administrative Court, and the Egyptian 

government continues to only permit cotton imports for utilization in the country’s free trade 

zones as mandated in Decree 652 of November 22, 2011. In September 2012, CAPQ announced 

that Egypt would require inspection by CAPQ personnel prior to shipment. CAPQ informed 

USDA on November 13, 2013, that it is delaying the implementation of its decision due to the

lack of availability of inspectors, but the requirement remains in force. The United States will 

continue to engage with Egypt to remove these burdensome requirements.

ETHIOPIA

Agricultural Biotechnology

In September 2009, Ethiopia established a biosafety law that may impose unduly burdensome 

documentation and testing requirements for agricultural biotechnology products. Ethiopia has 

since issued implementing regulations, which restrict the use of U.S. agricultural commodities 

derived from biotech. The restrictions include but are not limited to: requiring the applicant to 

use a qualified expert to undertake the risk assessment for each transaction; prohibiting the use of 

“may contain modified organisms” language for traded living modified organisms in shipments 

intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing; and requiring a signed statement for all 

imports from the head of the competent national authority of the country of export to the effect 

that the competent national authority takes full responsibility for the completeness and accuracy

of the information provided in the import application. U.S. officials continue to engage

Ethiopian officials to express concerns about this legislation and to seek clarification regarding 

implementation procedures.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

EUROPEAN UNION

Agricultural Biotechnology

European Union (EU) measures governing the importation and use of GE products have resulted 

in substantial barriers to trade. EU policies restrict the importation and use of U.S. agricultural 

commodities derived from agricultural biotechnology. The EU’s restrictions on GE products can 
44

result in import prohibitions on U.S.-produced commodities and foods, as well as prohibitions on 

the cultivation of GE seeds. 

These restrictions include but are not limited to:

• commercially infeasible traceability and labeling requirements for GE content in food 

products under EU Traceability and Labeling regulations;

• prohibitions on the importation of GE commodities by certain EU Member States;

• bans on cultivation of GE crops in certain EU Member States; and 

• unnecessary and burdensome requirements related to planting of GE crops alongside nonGE crops (for example, requiring non-GE buffer zones around fields planted with GE 

varieties) in certain EU Member States.

Issues related to EU approval processes further inhibit trade in GE products. These include:

• delays in approvals of new GE traits despite positive assessments by the European Food 

Safety Authority (EFSA); and

• registration requirements for GE commodities.

Under EU law, each GE trait, as well as each combination of traits, must be approved for a 

specific use before an agricultural product containing or produced from that trait or traits is 

allowed to be imported or used in the EU. The EU approval system has two basic steps: an 

initial scientific assessment, followed by a “comitology” process, which involves interactions 

between the European Commission and the EU Member States. Even when the EU approves a 

particular GE product, EU biotechnology legislation provides that individual Member States may 

invoke their own bans under a so‐called “safeguard clause.”

EFSA undertakes the scientific assessment in the EU. EFSA assessments of GE products 

generally take longer than comparable scientific assessments in the United States and other 

countries. However, EFSA generally reaches the same scientific conclusion for a specific GE 

product as scientific authorities in the United States and other countries.

On June 8, 2013, the European Commission published Commission Implementing Regulation 

(EU) No 503/2013, which governs EFSA evaluations of GE traits. This regulation specifies the 

data and testing necessary for all applications, requiring certain tests, including feeding studies, 

irrespective of whether they are scientifically necessary and appropriate to the application or 

whether they go beyond or conflict with the approach to safety assessment outlined in the 

relevant Codex guidelines. The regulation is likely to increase the length of time that EFSA 

takes to evaluate applications. 

If EFSA concludes that the GE product is as safe as its conventional counterpart, the application 

proceeds to the “comitology” process. Under the comitology process, the European Commission 

first prepares an approval measure based on the scientific assessment. The Commission then
45

submits the measure to a regulatory committee comprised of representatives from each of the 28 

EU Member States. Not once in over 12 years has an EU regulatory committee accepted a

proposed measure to approve a new GE product. Instead, EU regulatory committees have

always issued a “no‐decision.” This non‐result leads to further, time‐consuming procedures in 

the comitology process. The failure of EU regulatory committees to make decisions in 

accordance with the EU’s own scientific opinions has resulted in substantial delays in the

approval of GE products.

In response to these types of problems, in May 2003, the United States – joined by Canada and 

Argentina – initiated a WTO challenge to the EU’s operation of its biotech approval system. In 

September 2006, a WTO dispute settlement panel upheld the U.S. claims. The panel found: (1)

that the EU had adopted a de facto, across‐the‐board moratorium on the final approval of GE

products and that the moratorium resulted in undue delays in violation of the EU’s obligations

under the SPS Agreement; (2) that the EU had violated its SPS Agreement obligations to 

consider biotech applications without undue delay with respect to 24 specific GE product 

applications; and (3) that EU Member State bans on products approved in the EU prior to the

moratorium were not supported by scientific evidence and were thus inconsistent with the EU’s 

SPS Agreement obligations.

The WTO Dispute Settlement Body adopted the report in November 2006, and the EU’s 

“reasonable period of time” for compliance expired in January 2008. At that time, the United 

States submitted a request to the WTO for authority to suspend trade concessions. Under an 

agreement with the EU, however, proceedings on the U.S. request were suspended to provide the 

EU an opportunity to demonstrate meaningful progress on the approval of GE products. The 

United States continues to engage the European Commission in an effort to normalize trade in 

GE products.

As of December 31, 2013, 68 GE product applications (for import, cultivation, or renewal) were 

pending approval in the EU system. In the course of 2013, about 10 GE product applications for 

cultivation were withdrawn. The EU approved only five GE products in 2013 (two import, one 

renewal and two extensions of the scope of use), with an average processing time of 45 months. 

In addition, the EU has not approved for cultivation a single GE product of commercial 

significance to the United States in over 12 years, leading to the withdrawal of multiple pending 

requests.

EU delays in GE product approvals can block trade not only for the products subject to the 

delays, but also for approved varieties. Under the EU’s implementation of its biotechnology 

legislation, the presence in U.S. grain or oilseed shipments of trace amounts of GE crops that are 

legally grown in the United States, but not yet approved in the EU, can make U.S. crops 

unmarketable in the EU. In July 2011, the EU implemented a “technical solution” to address the 

presence of trace amounts of EU‐unapproved GE products in import shipments. The new rules 

only cover shipments of imported animal feed (thus excluding food for human consumption) and 

provide an impractically low tolerance level. The Commission has announced that it will assess 

the need to include food within the scope of the rules, but has yet to issue any proposals. 
46

The EU has taken steps to address some, but not all, of the Member State bans that the WTO 

panel found to be inconsistent with the EU’s WTO obligations. Member States, however, have

continued to adopt new bans on products approved at the EU level. In most cases, the 

Commission asks EFSA to issue an opinion on whether the Member State ban can be justified on 

a scientific basis. EFSA consistently has determined that the Member State bans lack a scientific 

justification. In several instances, the Commission has proceeded to draft a measure, in 

accordance with the EFSA scientific opinion, that would require the Member State to lift its 

unjustified ban. However, the EU regulatory committees have blocked each such measure, just as 

the regulatory committees have failed to approve new GE varieties.

In July 2010, the Commission presented a package of proposals that would expand the reasons 

that a Member State could use to justify bans on cultivating GE crops in its territory. The 

package included a new recommendation on the management of GE crops grown in proximity to

conventional and organic crops (referred to as ‘co-existence’) and a proposed amendment to the

governing EU legislation. The recommendation on co‐existence took effect immediately. It 

provides Member States greater flexibility when developing national co‐existence measures and

allows them to define GE‐crop‐free areas. The legislative proposal, which is still under

consideration and is subject to “co‐decision” by the Member States and the European Parliament, 

would allow Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GE crops in all or part of

their territories. The proposal does not require Member States to base any such restrictions on 

safety concerns, but allows them to take into account specific national or local issues, such as 

agronomic concerns related to segregating biotech and conventional crops, or political or 

economic motivations such as meeting market demand for non-biotech products.

In September 2013, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the European Commission 

had failed to act on a petition to permit the cultivation of a biotech corn variety, known as 1507. 

The original application for approval for cultivation was submitted in July 2001. EFSA 

delivered positive safety assessments on six occasions between 2005 and 2012. Following legal 

action by the applicant, the Commission presented a draft Decision to approve 1507 corn for 

cultivation for a vote in the relevant regulatory committee in February 2009. However, there 

was no qualified majority in favor of the draft Decision to approve 1507 corn for cultivation. 

Under the relevant EU legislation, the Commission was required to submit, ‘without delay’, the 

draft Decision to the European Council for approval. This did not happen, however, until the 

applicant took further legal action, resulting in the September 2013 ECJ ruling. Following the 

ruling, the Commission finally forwarded the draft Decision to the Council in January 2014. The 

Council voted on the application, but did not reach a qualified majority; therefore, the decision 

has been returned to the Commission, which is required to take a decision on it. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products – Hormones

In May 2009, the United States signed a MOU with the EU to resolve on a provisional basis the

WTO dispute between the United States and the EU over U.S. beef raised with growth‐

promoting hormones. The MOU, which took effect in August 2009, provides additional duty‐
47

free access to the EU market for high-quality beef produced from cattle that have not been raised 

with growth‐promoting hormones. The MOU required the EU to maintain a duty-free TRQ of 

20,000 metric tons (MT) in each of its first three years. It required the EU to increase the TRQ 

to 45,000 MT during the second phase of the MOU, which began in August 2012.

In October 2013, the United States and the EU agreed to extend the second phase of the MOU 

through July 2015. The United States will continue to monitor EU implementation of the MOU, 

as well as other developments affecting access to the EU market for U.S. beef products.

Beef – Pathogen Reduction Treatments

The EU’s failure to allow the use of PRTs that are used in the United States remains an issue. In

December 2010, USDA requested the European Commission to approve the use of lactic acid as 

a PRT in the processing of beef carcasses and meat. EFSA which concluded that beef treated 

with lactic acid as a PRT is safe for human consumption. However, after considerable delay, the 

European Commission published a final regulation with an effective date of February 25, 2013, 

allowing the use of lactic acid on carcasses, but not meat cuts. The EU has not approved any 

other PRTs for use on beef.

Milk and Milk Products

The EU limits the number of somatic cells permitted in raw milk, as measured by the somatic

(non-reproductive) cell count (SCC). Exporters of dairy products to the EU must demonstrate 

that the milk used in the production of the exported products meets the EU’s SCC requirements. 

The EU’s SCC limit is burdensome for U.S. exporters since the FDA has established higher SCC 

levels than the EU permits. Moreover, the FDA considers the SCC level to be a quality rather 

than food safety criterion and, as such, believes that statements about SCC should not be 

required in health attestations contained in export certificates. The United States will continue to 

work with EU authorities to resolve this issue.

Poultry – Pathogen Reduction Treatments

In 1997, the EU began blocking imports of U.S. poultry products that had been processed with 

PRTs. The EU has further prohibited the marketing of poultry as “poultry meat” if it has been 

processed with PRTs. In late 2002, the United States requested the EU to approve the use in the 

processing of poultry intended for the EU market of four PRTs that are approved for use in the 

United States: chlorine dioxide, acidified sodium chlorite, trisodium phosphate, and peroxyacids.

Between 1998 and 2008, various EU agencies issued scientific reports concerning poultry 

processed with these PRTs. Taken together, the reports conclude that residues of these PRTs do 

not pose a health risk to consumers.

In May 2008, the European Commission, after years of delay, prepared a proposal that approved 

the use of the four PRTs for processing of poultry, but imposed highly trade restrictive 

conditions on their use that did not appear to be based on science. EU Member States rejected 
48

the Commission’s proposal, first at the regulatory committee level and then, in December 2008, 

at the ministerial level.

In January 2009, the United States requested consultations with the EU on whether the EU’s 

failure to approve the four PRTs was consistent with the EU’s commitments under various WTO 

agreements, including the SPS Agreement. The United States and the EU held those 

consultations in February 2009, but failed to resolve the matter. In November 2009, the WTO 

Dispute Settlement Body established a panel to address the matter. That litigation is pending.

In June 2013, USDA submitted a new application to the EU for use of peroxyacetic acid as a 

PRT in poultry. EFSA officially validated the dossier in September 2013 and is expected to 

deliver a scientific assessment in early 2014. 

MRLs 

Since the establishment of the EU’s harmonized pesticide MRL system in September 2008, the 

EU’s process for setting import tolerances for pesticides has raised concerns. U.S. stakeholder 

groups have raised concerns that U.S. growers frequently cannot use newly-developed plant 

protection products, because no EU MRL has been established, or the EU MRL is set at a level 

that is too low.

In addition, U.S. stakeholders have raised concerns that it is unclear at what point in the 

tolerance-setting process agricultural or chemical industry stakeholders can provide technical 

data and usage information – information vital to the process. Publication of opinions from 

EFSA marks the first point at which the EU makes a proposed MRL publicly available. 

However, agricultural stakeholders are not provided an opportunity to comment on a proposed 

MRL until the proposal has been notified to the WTO, at which point the EU generally cannot 

make changes to the proposal. 

U.S. stakeholders have also voiced concerns about costs associated with the EU’s import 

tolerance application process, including the level of fees that the EU charges for filing an 

application for a tolerance. Moreover, the EU requires information that does not need to be 

generated to have a tolerance established in the United States. Many grower groups assert that 

they cannot afford to seek EU import tolerances due to these challenges. The United States will 

continue to advocate for the streamlining of the EU’s system for the establishment of import 

tolerances for pesticides.

Ractopamine

On July 5, 2012, Codex adopted maximum residue levels for ractopamine, a new animal drug 

approved for use in feed that promotes feed efficiency in pigs and certain other livestock. The

EU, however, maintains a ban on meat produced with ractopamine, despite U.S. government 

approval of ractopamine, establishment of the Codex maximum residue level for ractopamine, 

and scientific evidence indicating that ractopamine can be used safely. As a consequence of the 

EU’s ban, U.S. pork exporters must participate in the burdensome Pork for the EU Program to 

verify that pork being shipped to the EU has not been produced using ractopamine. In addition, 

U.S. pork shipments to the EU must undergo expensive laboratory testing to verify the absence
49

of ractopamine residue. These requirements, which appear to lack scientific justification, pose a

major impediment to U.S. pork exports to the EU, and only a small group of U.S. suppliers 

currently ship to the EU. The United States will continue to encourage the EU to implement the 

Codex standards or provide sufficient scientific evidence to support its ban on meat produced 

with ractopamine.

Seafood

Prior to 2008, the EU authorized imports of U.S.‐origin molluscan shellfish under the terms of 

the United States‐European Community Veterinary Equivalence Agreement (VEA). In 2008, the

Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Consumers notified FDA that the import 

approval for U.S.‐origin molluscan shellfish would expire at the end of 2009. Despite high‐level 

U.S. Government engagement on the issue, the EU began barring imports of all U.S.‐origin 

molluscan shellfish other than scallops in July 2010.

Since that time, the U.S. Government has actively engaged with the European Commission on 

this issue and has provided the EU with information it has stated it needs to reach an equivalence

determination and allow imports of U.S. molluscan shellfish to resume. The United States will 

continue its engagement with the EU to allow resumption of exports.

Animal Health 

Animal By-Products: Tallow

In 2002, the EU published Regulation (EC) 1774/2002, which established problematic new 

requirements related to BSE for marketing animal by‐products that are not intended for human 

consumption, including by-products used in materials intended for animal consumption. The 

regulation effectively prohibited the importation of U.S. tallow that is not intended for human 

consumption. Between 2002 and 2007, the United States and the EU engaged in discussions 

resulting in an agreement with the EU to amend its regulation to allow the importation of U.S. 

tallow for some technical purposes. In the years 2007-2009, the EU stated that it had to wait until 

it replaced Regulation (EC) 1774/2002 to make those changes.

In 2009, the EU published Regulation (EC) 1069/2009, which began the process of replacing 

Regulation (EC) 1774/2002. Upon publication of Regulation (EC) 1069/2009, the EU stated that 

the changes related to tallow would not come into effect until new implementing regulations for

Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 were implemented. In 2011, the EU published Regulation (EU)

142/2011, which took effect in March 2011 and revised the EU’s requirements for importing

tallow. While this regulation contained requirements for tallow intended for technical purposes 

that exceeded the recommendations of the OIE, the EU assured the United States that the EU

would not apply the regulation in such a manner to block the importation of U.S. tallow intended 

for certain technical purposes. Consequently, U.S. industry began preparing to meet these new

requirements. However, in 2012, the EU began applying the regulation in such a manner to 

effectively prohibit the importation of U.S. tallow. Later in 2012, the United States began 

discussions with the EU to try to re-open the market. The EU has worked on a draft regulatory 

change for tallow used for biodiesel manufacture. However the EU’s requirement that U.S.

tallow and its derivatives be treated as hazardous materials and subjected to costly additional 
50

procedures within the European Union remains an obstacle to imports of U.S. tallow. The

United States continues to press the EU to remove its unwarranted requirements and allow more

market access for U.S. tallow.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Plant Health

Seeds

It is challenging to re-export to the EU seeds that were produced in another country and 

subsequently shipped to the United States if the re-exportation was not planned before the seeds 

left their country of production. This is because the EU requires the seeds to be accompanied by 

a phytosanitary certificate from the country of origin that includes EU-specific language, 

including citation to EU directives. 

Wheat 

Many EU countries, especially the UK and Greece, aggressively sample shipments of U.S. wheat 

to test for KB spores even though KB is only being found in a few counties in Arizona. In the 

nearly 20 years since KB was first found in the United States, KB has never emerged elsewhere 

in the world as a result of imports of U.S. wheat, and there has never been a confirmed case of 

KB contamination of a U.S. wheat shipment. Nonetheless, instead of looking for KB by 

inspecting shipments for bunted kernels, many EU countries test shipments for spores. These 

tests can produce false positives, resulting in lost shipments. 

The EU, moreover, has to date refused to accept USDA’s Federal Grain Inspection Service 

(FGIS) official sampling and testing requirements for vomitoxin (deoxynivalenol or DON) and 

ochratoxin in shipments of U.S. wheat for export as equivalent to the EU testing method for 

these mycotoxins. USDA is working with technical experts in the European Commission to 

garner EU recognition of FGIS sampling and testing methods for vomitoxin and ochratoxin in 

U.S. wheat exports. U.S. industry expects that EU recognition of these sampling and testing 

methods would significantly reduce testing burdens, and related costs, associated with the 

exportation of U.S. wheat to the EU.

EU Country Specific Issues

Austria

Agricultural Biotechnology

Since 1997, Austria has maintained a series of cultivation and import bans on GE agricultural 

products. The United States challenged several of these bans at the WTO, which found the 

challenged bans inconsistent with Austrian and EU obligations under the SPS Agreement. In

May 2008, Austria lifted its import bans on the MON 810 and T25 GE corn varieties, but left in 

place its cultivation ban on these varieties. Moreover, in July 2008, Austria issued new import 
51

bans on MON 863 corn as well as on three rapeseed (canola) varieties. A cultivation ban on a 

GE starch potato was issued in April 2010. 

Not only does Austria maintain cultivation bans at the federal level, but Austrian states also 

maintain bans. Moreover, Austria consistently votes against EU regulatory approval for new 

biotech crop varieties, regardless of the scientific evidence presented in the application dossier. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue. 

Bulgaria

Agricultural Biotechnology

In March 2010, Bulgaria issued a new biotechnology law, which prohibits the cultivation of GE 

crops in all protected regions, as well as surrounding areas. Protected regions are distributed 

throughout the country in a manner that results in the restrictions applying to the entirety of 

Bulgaria’s territory, and accordingly the restrictions in effect serve to ban all biotech field trials 

and production. In addition, the law requires the Minister of Agriculture to invoke the EU’s 

“safeguard clause” for a particular GE crop in Bulgaria whenever another EU Member State

invokes the safeguard clause for that same crop. (See discussion above of the EU safeguard 

provisions.) Separately, in July 2010, Bulgaria enacted a prohibition on the use of GE products 

and ingredients in the production of foods for children and in baby food. The July 2010 

regulation also banned distribution and sale of GE foods and food products in nurseries, 

kindergartens, and schools, as well as in retail outlets and within 100 meters of such

establishments. The United States has raised concerns with these measures with the government 

of Bulgaria.

In April 2012, the European Commission (EC) notified Bulgaria that pursuant to EU 

requirements, it would need to revise its legislation to allow activities related to biotechnology 

when they do not pose health or environmental risks. In response, Bulgarian authorities 

announced proposed amendments to Bulgaria’s biotechnology law on December 3, 2013. The 

amendments are open for public comment and are likely to enter into force in early 2014.

In 2013, Bulgaria also amended its Feed Act of November 2012. This action imposed further 

restrictions on trade in feed containing GE products and increased the fines for trading in illegal 

or improperly-labeled GE feed products. The amendments aimed to harmonize Bulgarian law 

with certain EU regulations in the area of feed safety and traceability.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue. 

Croatia

Agricultural Biotechnology

Croatia prohibits the importation of all foods that contain even trace amounts of GE agricultural

products. This restriction makes it extremely burdensome and expensive to export U.S. food 

products to Croatia.
52

Although Croatia has become an EU Member State and has adopted the EU's biotech legislation,

Croatia remains part of a group of EU member states that maintain more-stringent national

biotech policies than the EU. Croatia regularly tests products for biotech events at the border 

and in the market. The testing is performed in accordance with Croatia’s annual plans for 

Sanitary Inspection, which vary each year based on available resources.

Croatia’s GE law bans the release of GE plants in areas that have been designated by the 

government of Croatia as having ‘protected’ status, as well as all areas within a certain distance 

of those ‘protected’ areas; in areas of organic farming; and in areas that are of importance to 

ecotourism. The law provides a legal tool for preventing the cultivation of GE plants in most of 

the country. Moreover, 14 out of Croatia’s 20 counties have issued hortatory declarations that 

they are “GE free”. To date, no permits have been granted for the deliberate release of GE plants 

in Croatia – either for field trials or commercial cultivation – and no food or feed products 

containing biotechnology have been approved for importation into Croatia. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

France

Agricultural Biotechnology

Cultivation in France of MON 810 corn grew from 500 hectares in 2005 to 22,000 hectares in 

2007. However, in January 2008, following a review by a new “interim” biotechnology 

authority, France banned the cultivation of MON 810, invoking the “safeguard” clause under EU 

regulations. In October 2008, EFSA found that France had presented no scientific basis to 

justify the safeguard measure. Nonetheless, France left in place its ban on the cultivation of 

MON 810. While the French State Council lifted the ban November 2011, pursuant to the

conclusions of the European Court of Justice, France re-initiated its national ban on the 

cultivation of MON 810 on March 18, 2012. The press revealed that the government of France 

reinitiated the ban without the advice of France’s High Council on Biotechnology.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

BPA Ban

In late 2012, France adopted legislation that bans the use of materials produced using BisphenolA (BPA) in packaging that touches food. The ban took effect in January 2013 with respect to 

packaging for food products designed for infants or pregnant and lactating women. Beginning in 

2015, it will cover packaging for all foods; in the interim, food packaging containing BPA must 

bear a warning label advising against consumption of the packaged food by pregnant and 

lactating women and infants aged less than three years. If fully implemented, this measure is 

expected to severely limit U.S. exports of canned and many packaged foods, which can use

packaging containing BPA. The U.S. Government has expressed its concerns about this issue to 

the office of the French Prime Minister and officials at France’s Ministries of Health, 

Agriculture, Trade, and Finance. The U.S. Government has also discussed the issue with the 

European Commission.
53

Germany

Agricultural Biotechnology

In 2009, Germany banned the cultivation of MON 810 corn, invoking the “safeguard” clause 

under EU regulations. EFSA subsequently determined that Germany had not presented any

scientific evidence to justify the new ban. Despite the EFSA evaluation, the German

Agricultural Ministry has maintained Germany’s MON 810 ban.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue. 

Greece

Agricultural Biotechnology

Greece maintains a ban on all biotech cultivation as well as on the importation of several GE 

products. Since April 2005, Greece has implemented and extended bans on MON 810. In July

2008, EFSA determined that Greece’s ban lacked a scientific basis. Nevertheless, in August 

2009, Greece extended the ban for another two years and expanded the measure to include a ban 

on cultivation. Greece now maintains its bans on MON 810 by invoking the “safeguard clause” 

under the EU regulations.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue. 

Hungary

Agricultural Biotechnology

In 2005, Hungary imposed a moratorium on the cultivation of GE crops, which was upheld by 

the EU Council of Ministers in February 2007 and again in 2009. In 2011, Hungary

implemented new rules for the testing of seed for the presence of GE products. The new rules do 

not address any identifiable environmental or health risks, the testing methodologies used 

pursuant to the new rules are not transparent, and test results may not be challenged on technical

grounds. In senior level meetings, USDA registered concern with how Hungary is handling the

issue of seed testing and highlighted the importance of science-based, transparent regulations to 

agricultural investment.

Hungary maintains three differing testing policies based on the origin of the seed. Seed 

produced in Hungary is subject to random testing for the presence of GE products, but no 

comprehensive testing and certification is required. Seed imported from another EU Member 

State is required to have a testing certificate from an accredited EU laboratory. Seed imported 

from a third country requires testing by a Hungarian government laboratory. As the Hungarian 

laboratories do not follow transparent processes, do not use standard methodologies, and do not 

allow test results to be challenged, non-EU seed producers appear to be at a disadvantage to EU 

seed producers.
54

In 2012, Hungary adopted an amendment to its 1998 Act on Biotechnology. The amendment 

refines the rules that apply to non-commercial release of GE varieties for research purposes, 

expands the regulatory powers of the relevant Hungarian authorities, and mandates that 

administrative procedures for imports of GE food and feed align with EU rules.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue. 

Italy

Agricultural Biotechnology

Numerous actions attest to the fact that Italy is pursuing a GE-free strategy. Italy has one of the 

most anti-GE voting records in the EU and has failed to authorize biotech field trials despite EU 

ministerial approval. For the past decade, Italy has maintained a de facto ban on the cultivation 

of EU-approved GE crops by creating fragmented national and regional biotech authorities. 

Moreover, Italy has not established a national legal framework for the cultivation of GE 

products. Seed importers report that they are subject to criminal penalties for the adventitious 

(i.e., accidental or unintended) presence of GE seeds in commercial shipments of non-GE seeds.

In September 2012, the ECJ issued a decision concluding that Italy’s additional national 

authorization procedures for GE crops are unlawful and that the cultivation of GE varieties 

cannot be made subject to a national authorization when their use has been authorized at the EU 

level. The ECJ was ruling on a case brought against the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, which 

had denied authorization to plant a GE corn variety pending the adoption of national coexistence

measures.

On August 12, 2013, an Inter-Ministerial Decree was published in Italy’s Official Gazette 

formally restricting the cultivation of GE crops in Italy, despite the findings in the ECJ’s 

September 2012 decision that Italy’s de facto ban on cultivation approvals was illegal and could 

only be imposed as an ‘emergency measure’ with supporting documentation. Furthermore, on 

September 24, 2013, EFSA concluded there was no evidence to support Italy’s request to impose 

emergency measures banning biotech cultivation under Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003. 

Latvia

Agricultural Biotechnology

On June 18, 2009, Latvia modified its Law on Circulation of Genetically Modified Organisms to 

grant decision‐making authority on biotech cultivation to local municipalities. Since passage of 

the law, 101 of the 110 municipalities in Latvia have banned the cultivation of GE crops in 

response to strong consumer activism and tacit support of the Ministry of Environment. 

According to Latvia’s Ministry of Environment, the basis for the current regulation is the “EU 

Environment Ministers agreement ‐ Council Conclusions,” which notes that GE-free zones can 

be created on the basis of voluntary agreements among the “economic operators” in an area.
55

The United States has engaged the government of Latvia regarding its current policy and has

requested further information about the basis for the current biotech cultivation bans. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

Luxembourg

Agricultural Biotechnology

In March 2009, Luxembourg banned the cultivation of MON 810. EFSA found that 

Luxembourg’s ban lacked a scientific basis, yet the ban remains in place.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue. 

Poland

Agricultural Biotechnology

Since 2006, Poland has not only opposed the approval of GE crops at the EU level, but has taken 

official steps to become “GE‐free.” In 2006, Poland passed legislation that banned the sale and 

registration of GE seeds, restricted Polish representatives to the European Parliament from 

supporting pro-biotechnology legislative proposals, and prohibited the importation, production, 

and use of animal feed derived from GE crops beginning in August 2008. On August 28, 2012, 

the Polish President signed an amendment to Poland’s Feed Act delaying the implementation of 

a ban on the entry, production, manufacturing, marketing, and use of animal feed containing GE

components until January 1, 2017. However, effective January 28, 2013, the Polish government 

banned the cultivation of EU-approved MON810 corn and a GE potato variety, the Amflora 

potato, through an amendment to the Polish Seed Act applying the EU safeguard clause. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue. 

Portugal

Agricultural Biotechnology

Portugal is the second largest EU producer of MON810 corn, after Spain. However, in May

2010, the Autonomous Region of Madeira (a Portuguese archipelago) became the first region of 

the EU to declare itself free of biotech cultivation after the European Commission failed to 

oppose Madeira’s request by the legislated deadline. Madeira’s authority for its ban on GE 

cultivation was further codified when, in July 2010, the Commission announced new “co‐

existence” measures that authorize Member States to allow, restrict, or ban the cultivation of GE 

crops in part or all of their territory. The net effect of the Madeira GE‐free declaration is that no 

GE crops can be grown in Madeira. In June 2012, the Azores, another Autonomous region of 

Portugal, also declared itself a GE-free cultivation zone. 
56

Portugal not only allows autonomous regions to declare themselves GE-free, it also allows 

municipalities to do so. To date, 30 out of Portugal’s 308 municipalities have done so. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

Romania

Food Safety

Eggs 

Under the VEA, the EU agreed that egg products and shell eggs from the United States 

unconditionally meet the EU’s appropriate level of sanitary protection. The VEA also states that 

the United States can certify establishments for export to all member states, including Romania. 

However, Romania has not recognized non-EU suppliers of fresh or processed eggs. Because 

there is no EU regulation listing the United States or U.S. suppliers as eligible to export to all EU 

Member States, Romania’s failure to adopt a national regulation prevents U.S. access to the 

Romanian egg products market. 

Animal Health

Supplementary Testing for Frozen Bovine Semen 

In 2011, as part of a new surveillance program, the Romanian Veterinary Authority required 

samples to be collected from imported bovine semen for testing for Bovine Brucellosis. In 

September 2012, after several months of engagement by FAS Bucharest, the Romanian 

Veterinary Authority modified its Brucellosis testing requirement to apply only to new-to-market 

bulls originating from non-EU countries. This requirement continues to be applied with respect 

to bovine semen from the United States even though U.S. veterinary certificates attest that the 

donor animal is free from Bovine Brucellosis, and even though the requirement is not applied to 

bovine semen from animals of EU origin. 

HONG KONG

Food Safety

Hong Kong is in the midst of a transition to a positive pesticide MRL list, which is scheduled to 

go into effect on August 1, 2014. The United States has submitted several rounds of comments 

to Hong Kong regarding the transition and has identified numerous U.S.-approved pesticides that 

were missing from Hong Kong’s provisional positive MRL list. As a result of U.S. efforts, 

numerous MRLs for U.S.-approved pesticides have been included on Hong Kong’s national 

MRL list, but there remain a significant number of U.S.-approved pesticides for which MRLs 

have not yet been established in Hong Kong. The United States will continue to engage with 

Hong Kong during this transition to determine what additional data is needed for Hong Kong to 

set MRLs for U.S.-approved pesticides, and will work with relevant authorities to obtain 

tolerances for the remaining U.S.-approved pesticides prior to Hong Kong’s implementation 

date. 
57

INDIA

Food Safety

Dairy Products

Since 2003, India has imposed unwarranted SPS requirements on U.S. dairy imports, which have 

precluded U.S. access to India’s dairy market, one of the largest in the world. India has insisted 

on onerous certification requirements and refused to accept U.S. food safety and animal health 

standards as effective.

See section III.A for an explanation of the export certification trade issue.

Pork

The Indian import certificate for pork requires that importers make an attestation that the 

imported pork does not contain any residues of pesticides, veterinary drugs, mycotoxins, or other 

chemicals above the MRLs prescribed in international standards. However, these certificates fail 

to identify specific compounds and their corresponding international limits, creating uncertainty 

for importers. India also restricts the importation of pork that has been fed ruminant-derived 

protein, which is inconsistent with OIE guidelines. Similarly, the animal health attestations that

India requires for the exportation of pork to India are vague, and India requires extra inspections 

that do not appear to be consistent with international standards. India also prohibits imports from 

the United States of pork products obtained from animals raised outside the United States, 

notwithstanding the safety of those products. Further, import certificates are valid for only six

months and must be obtained for each imported lot. The United States will continue to press

India to lift its unwarranted restrictions and to revise its import certificates so as to clarify any

legitimate requirements and be valid for a reasonable period of time.

India only allows imports of U.S. pork from plants that inspectors have certified are free of 

PRRS, trichinae, transmissible gastroenteritis, atrophic rhinitis, leptospirosis and anthrax for two 

years prior to slaughter. The United States does not consider these requirements to be necessary 

as U.S. producers maintain stringent biosecurity protocols that serve to limit the appearance of 

these diseases in the United States to extremely low levels. The United States continues to 

discuss this issue with India.

See section III.A for an explanation of the export certification trade issue.

Animal Health

Poultry, Swine, and Pet Food

Since 2006, India has banned imports of U.S. poultry, swine, and related products purportedly 

because of LPAI detections in the United States. The United States repeatedly raised concerns in 

the WTO SPS Committee about India’s import bans and discussed these concerns with Indian 

officials numerous times, including at a high‐level during the United States‐India Trade Policy

Forum. The United States and other trading partners have requested that India lift its ban.
58

To further address this matter, the United States requested WTO dispute settlement consultations 

with India regarding its import ban on March 6, 2012. The United States and India held 

consultations in Geneva in April 2012. The consultations did not lead to a resolution of the

dispute. At the request of the United States, in 2012 the WTO Dispute Settlement Body 

established a panel to resolve the dispute. During 2013, the parties to the dispute filed written 

submissions, and the panel held two meetings with the parties. The panel is expected to issue its 

report on the U.S. claims against India in 2014. 

See section III.D for an explanation of the AI trade issue.

Plant Health

Pulses

India requires that shipments of all pulses to India be fumigated with at methyl bromide (MB) at 

the port of origin. However, it is not feasible to fumigate pulses at U.S. ports due to the phaseout of MB in the United States. Additionally, it is difficult to fumigate pulses with MB in colder 

climates. 

In August 2004, the United States asked India to permit the exportation of U.S. pea and pulse 

consignments to India without fumigation at the port of origin provided they are inspected and, if 

necessary, fumigated at the port of arrival. India has enacted, but not implemented a requirement 

that shipments of all pulses to India be fumigated at the point of origin, allowing MB 

fumigation on arrival, but has offered no permanent solution. The most recent extension expires 

on March 31, 2014. The United States continues to seek a permanent resolution to this issue.

Wheat and Barley

India maintains zero-tolerance standards for certain plant quarantine pests, such as weed seeds 

and ergot. These zero tolerance standards block U.S. wheat and barley exports to India. Bilateral 

discussions to resolve these issues continue. 

INDONESIA

Food Safety

Beef and Pork

Indonesia does not recognize the equivalence of the U.S. inspection system for beef and pork. 

Instead, Indonesia requires U.S. meat establishments seeking to export to Indonesia to complete 

an extensive questionnaire that includes proprietary information. Indonesia’s document-review

process, moreover, has resulted in approval of only a limited number of U.S. establishments. 

Several U.S. beef and pork establishments submitted applications more than three years ago and 

still have not obtained approvals.

The United States has raised concerns about the establishment questionnaires and approval

system with Indonesia repeatedly, including at the WTO SPS Committee and at meetings of the 
59

United States-Indonesia Council on Trade and Investment, and will continue to raise concerns in 

WTO and bilateral fora.

Animal-Derived Products

In October 2009, Indonesia announced Law 18/2009, which requires companies that export

animal‐derived products, such as dairy and eggs, to Indonesia to complete a pre‐registration

process with the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture. The law allows imports of these products

only from facilities that Indonesian authorities have individually audited and approved. The law 

and associated implementing regulations, issued in 2011, impose overly stringent auditing and 

inspection requirements. To date, Indonesia has not notified Law 18/2009 to the WTO.

Following an audit of the U.S. food safety system as it applies to a dairy product in 2011, 

Indonesia agreed to a simplified questionnaire for U.S. dairy facilities seeking to pre-register for

review and approval. The United States is continuing to work with Indonesia to further to 

improve the system under which U.S. establishments are made eligible to export dairy products 

to Indonesia. 

IRAQ

Food Safety and Animal Health

On May 5, 2013, Iraq’s Advisory Committee for Food Safety issued Decision 183, which 

declared U.S. beef ineligible for import due to BSE concerns. The United States has requested 

the Advisory Committee to rescind the decision and lift the ban on U.S. beef. The United States 

will continue to urge Iraq to open its market fully to U.S. beef based on science, the OIE 

guidelines, and the United States’ BSE negligible risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

ISRAEL

Food Safety and Animal Health

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Israel imposed BSE-related restrictions on the importation of live cattle, beef, and beef products 

from the United States in 2003, but dropped these restrictions in 2011. Although Israel rescinded 

the restrictions, U.S. exporters remain unable to ship live cattle, beef, and beef products to Israel, 

because Israel has not agreed with the United States on a protocol for the exportation of these 

products from the United States to Israel. In 2013, the United States and Israel had productive 

discussions on a protocol; however, the issue remains unresolved.

See section III.A for an explanation of the export certification trade issue, and see section III.C 

for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.
60

Plant Health

Apples and Pears

In March 2009, Israel’s Plant Protection and Inspection Service informed the United States that

U.S. apples and pears would be subject to new cold treatment requirements to mitigate the risks 

of two pests, the apple maggot and the plum curculio. Israel has not conducted a PRA, and these 

pests have not been found in shipments from the United States. In 2012, Israel agreed to remove 

the cold treatment requirement for U.S. pears shipped in a firm state. Experts from USDA and 

Israel continue to work on an appropriate additional declaration to accompany the export 

certificates for pears. Regarding U.S. apples, originally Israel had approved four cold treatment 

methods, one of which was approved as an interim measure. Israel notified USDA in October 

2013 that the one treatment that was approved as an interim measure would be unavailable until 

Israel receives, reviews, and accepts research data from cold treatment efficacy trials, which are 

currently underway. As a result, exporters to Israel must use one of remaining three methods of 

cold treatment to minimize the risks 

Cherries

For nearly nine years, Israel has banned imports of U.S. sweet cherries, citing risks of various 

plant pests and diseases. U.S. officials are working with Israel to complete Israel’s risk 

assessment on sweet cherries in an attempt to resolve this longstanding issue. During technical 

bilateral meetings in August 2010, Israel agreed to expedite its risk assessment for U.S. sweet 

cherries. To date, however, the issue remains unresolved.

JAMAICA

Animal Health

Pork

Jamaica currently bans imports of U.S. pork. However, during 2013, Jamaica completed a risk 

assessment on U.S. chilled and frozen pork, with favorable results. The United States and 

Jamaica are currently negotiating language for veterinary certificates that would enable the 

shipment of U.S. pork to Jamaica. Jamaica also continues to work with the United States on the 

U.S. request for a determination of the equivalence of the U.S. sanitary system for pork.

JAPAN 

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

In December 2003, Japan banned U.S. beef and beef products following the detection of a BSEpositive animal in the United States. In July 2006, Japan partially reopened its market, allowing 

imports of some U.S. beef and beef products from animals aged 20 months or younger produced 

under a special program for Japan.
61

In October 2012, Japan’s Food Safety Commission (FSC) issued a final risk assessment 

regarding the importation of U.S. beef and beef products, which recommended that Japan: (1)

raise the age limit for cattle from which U.S. beef and beef products destined for Japan can be 

produced from 20 months of age to 30 months, and (2) adopt a revised definition of SRM that is 

closely aligned with the international standards of the OIE.

Based on the FSC risk assessment, Japan entered into consultations with the United States with 

the aim of revising Japanese import requirements for U.S. beef and beef products. In January 

2013, the United States and Japan agreed on new terms and conditions for the export of U.S. beef 

and beef products to Japan. Under these new terms, which entered into effect on February 1, 

2013, Japan now permits the import of beef from cattle less than 30 months of age. In an 

accompanying letter exchange, Japan also confirmed that the FSC is conducting an ongoing BSE 

risk assessment, which will assess the possibility of raising the age limit above 30 months for

beef and beef product imports from the United States, taking into account international 

standards. As a result of these actions, U.S. beef exports to Japan reached nearly $1.4 billion in 

2013, a 35 percent increase from 2012. The United States continues to press Japan for full 

market access, including all products from animals of all ages, consistent with OIE guidelines. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Food Additives

Japan’s regulation of food additives has restricted imports of several U.S. food products, 

especially processed foods. Many additives that are widely‐used in the United States and 

throughout the world are not allowed in Japan. In addition, U.S. manufacturers have complained 

about Japan’s prolonged approval process for indirect food additives (i.e., additives that do not 

remain on food, such as solvents).

In 2002 Japan created a list of 46 food additives that would be subject to an expedited approval 

process. More than seven of the 46 additives remain unapproved. The United States understands 

that Japan is currently reviewing the remaining unapproved additives. The United States has 

urged Japan to complete work on the reviews and to develop a meaningfully-expedited process

for reviewing all future requests for food additive approvals.

Gelatin and Collagen

Japan banned the importation of U.S.‐ ruminant-origin gelatin and collagen for human 

consumption (along with the importation of most other ruminant origin tissues from the United 

States) following the detection in December 2003 of a BSE-positive animal in the United States. 

Although the restrictions on some ruminant‐origin products were subsequently amended to allow 

for their importation, no modification has been made to the prohibition on ruminant‐origin

gelatin for human consumption. This import ban appears to be inconsistent with OIE guidelines.

The United States will continue to press Japan to undertake a risk assessment to pave the way for 

lifting the ban on U.S. ruminant-origin gelatin and collagen consistent with science and OIE

guidelines.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.
62

Pre- and Post-Harvest Fungicides

Until 2013, Japan maintained a bifurcated approval process for fungicides applied both before 

and after harvest. Fungicides applied pre-harvest are classified under Japanese law as pesticides 

and, before 2013, had to be approved through the approval process for pesticides. Fungicides 

that are applied post‐harvest are classified as food additives and, before 2013, had to be approved 

pursuant to the process used for approval of food additives. Accordingly, any fungicide used 

both pre- and post-harvest was required to undergo two separate risk assessments. The 

bifurcated approval process for fungicides applied both pre- and post-harvest was redundant and 

took as many as six years to complete. The requirement for dual risk assessments deterred 

registrants from pursuing approval for new and safe products. While significantly impacting 

U.S. exports, Japan’s dual risk assessment requirement did not have a significant impact on 

domestic producers, as Japanese farmers do not generally apply fungicides after harvest. 

Japan’s pre-2013 policy appeared to be inconsistent with Codex standards and widely-accepted 

procedures among countries with robust pesticide regulatory systems. Countries assessing the 

risk posed by a fungicide generally perform a single risk assessment, which takes into account 

the manner in which the fungicide is applied and focuses on the characteristics of the residue and 

the amount of residue present, regardless of the time of application to the crop.

In the fall of 2013, Japan announced a new streamlined review process for agricultural 

chemicals, including fungicides, applied both as pesticides (pre‐harvest application) and as food

additives (post-harvest application). Under the revised system, in line with international norms, 

Japanese officials will conduct a single risk assessment focusing on the characteristics of the 

agricultural chemical itself instead of the time of application to the crop. The revised process is 

expected to significantly reduce the length of time taken by regulatory reviews. The United 

States will work with Japan during the implementation of the new review process. 

Although Japan has stopped conducting bifurcated reviews of applications for approvals of 

fungicides, the United States remains concerned that Japan requires products treated with a postharvest fungicide to be labeled at the point of sale with a statement indicating that they have been 

so treated. This unnecessary labeling requirement dampens demand for the products.

Maximum Residue Limits

Prior to 2013, Japan’s refusal to accept an application for an import tolerance for a pesticide or

fungicide until the agrochemical was approved for use in a major supplier country exacerbated 

the risk of disruptions in U.S. exports to Japan by causing a significant time lag between U.S. 

approval of a chemical and Japan’s establishment of an import tolerance for that chemical. In 

May 2013, however, Japan announced that going forward, it would accept an import tolerance 

application for a pesticide or fungicide regardless of whether an MRL for the pesticide or 

fungicide has been set in the country that is the source of the application, as long as the core risk 

assessment is completed. With this change in policy, agrochemical companies submitting 

registration applications with U.S.-EPA became able to apply simultaneously for import 

tolerances in Japan. 
63

In July 2009, the United States and Japan concluded an MOU on MRLs that changed the way in 

which MRL violations are handled. Pursuant to the MOU, Japan established a mechanism under 

its import and food monitoring policy for shippers to address violations quickly. While there has 

been improvement in how Japan handles MRL violations, the United States remains concerned 

that Japan’s procedures still require industry-wide enhanced surveillance of shipments of a

product after a single violation by a single shipper.

See section III.E for an explanation of the MRL trade issue.

Animal Health

Poultry

U.S. poultry meat and poultry products, including egg products, are currently exported to Japan 

in accordance with a 2002 animal health protocol purportedly aimed at preventing AI. Japan 

unilaterally implemented the protocol, which limits market access for these U.S. products in a 

manner that appears to be inconsistent with the OIE guidelines on AI. While the United States 

and Japan agreed to modifications of the protocol in 2012, which addressed some of the 

problematic requirements related to HPAI, Japan continues to impose LPAI-related restrictions 

that do not appear be consistent with OIE recommendations. The United States continues to 

press Japan to agree to a fully OIE‐consistent revised protocol and to discontinue LPAI-based 

restrictions on these commodities.

See section III.D for an explanation of the AI trade issue.

Plant Health

Fresh and Chipping Potatoes

Until January 2006, Japan banned all imports of fresh potatoes from the United States due to 

phytosanitary concerns. On February 1, 2006, Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and 

Fisheries (MAFF) and USDA reached an agreement to allow limited imports of U.S. fresh 

potatoes from 13 states to produce potato chips. The agreement allowed shipments only to a

single chipping facility in Japan and provided for a shipping period of just five months (February

to June). In 2010, Japan added the state of Washington to the list of U.S. states eligible to ship 

chipping potatoes to Japan. In 2011, MAFF extended the eligible shipping period to include 

July. In 2012, the United States secured MAFF's approval of two additional U.S. states (Nevada 

and Montana) as eligible potato shipping states which significantly contributed to the increase 

om imports of U.S. fresh potatoes during that year. 

In 2011, the Japanese government also approved a second potato processing facility to receive 

U.S. chipping potatoes. This plant was in the Kagoshima Port area, and its approval has doubled 

Japan’s capacity to process U.S. chipping potatoes. However, Kagoshima does not have an 

international port and so currently U.S. potatoes must be transported on a feeder vessel. The 

U.S. potato industry and Japanese processors remain extremely interested in securing approval 

for the overland transportation of potatoes from an international port to the Kagoshima facility. 

At bilateral discussions in August 2013, Japan indicated that approval could occur for all 
64

overland routes, and thus for shipment to all Japanese potato processing facilities, but this has 

not yet occurred. Approval for overland transportation of U.S. potatoes will reduce the cost of 

transporting them to Japanese processing facilities and will clear the way for the processing of 

potatoes at non-port processing facilities. The United States will continue to engage with the 

government of Japan on this issue. 

KAZAKHSTAN

Systemic Issues

The entry into force of the Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus on January 1, 

2010 (the “Customs Union” or CU) has complicated exports into and trade among the three

countries, as they harmonize and revise their SPS measures.

The process of harmonizing and revising SPS measures between the Customs Union (CU) 

countries, which include Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, is ongoing. On July 1, 2010, the CU 

implemented harmonized veterinary requirements stipulating that imports for all products subject 

to veterinary control are eligible for entry only if they are produced in facilities on a list 

approved by all three CU countries. Although CU inspection regulations allow the CU to accept 

guarantees provided by SPS authorities in non-CU countries that certify new establishments in 

lieu of inspection by CU authorities, implementation of this provision has lacked predictability 

and transparency, with CU countries often insisting, without providing any rationale, on 

inspecting a facility prior to its approval. 

The United States worked with Russia and the CU authorities to remove products from the list of 

goods subject to veterinary control where no scientific basis supporting their inclusion was 

provided, to eliminate the requirement that the United States provide a list of all facilities that 

meet CU requirements for low risk goods subject to veterinary control and to streamline the 

approval of U.S. facilities. The CU countries have amended the CU agreements to align some of 

the CU’s veterinary requirements with international standards, guidelines, and recommendations. 

However, both on paper and as implemented by CU countries, many CU requirements continue 

to appear inconsistent with international standards, guidelines and recommendations. 

The U.S. Government continues to work with Kazakhstan to encourage improvements in the 

CU’s SPS regime and to ensure that implementation of the CU’s SPS measures does not disrupt 

trade. However, as a result of its adoption of CU requirements, Kazakhstan has begun to impose 

some measures that have the potential to restrain U.S. exports.

In addition to implementing CU import requirements, Kazakhstan now requires any importer or

domestic producer of certain types of goods to obtain a Certificate of State Registration before

the product can be sold in Kazakhstan. The Ministry of Health's Committee of State Sanitary

and Epidemiological Supervision is responsible for issuing these certificates. Goods subject to 

this certification requirement include:

• mineral water, drinking water in bottles, tonic water, and alcoholic beverages;

• food products produced with genetically-modified microorganisms;
65

• food supplements, complex food supplements, perfumes, plant extracts, microorganisms, 

and cultures;

• products for disinfection (except of those used in veterinary services); and

• items designated for contact with food products (except dishes, table amenities, and

microwaves).

Agricultural Biotechnology

The Kazakh draft law “On Seeds Farming” theoretically allows the field-testing of GE crops, 

although the draft law “On State Regulation of Genetic Engineering Activities” sets out an 

approval process for field tests. In the absence of an approval process, no field tests can occur. 

These draft laws have remained pending in the Kazakh Parliament since early 2011. The draft 

laws are expected to come up for discussion again in 2014. Some sources believe that it is likely 

the laws will only pass after Kazakhstan’s WTO accession. 

CU regulations covering GE products have recently come into force, regulating labeling of 

imports of GE products. As Kazakhstan continues to integrate into the CU, it is expected that the 

policies and views of the other CU countries will play a greater role in shaping the regulation of 

biotechnology in Kazakhstan.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

Food Safety

Pork

Kazakhstan requires imported pork to be shipped frozen to mitigate the risk of trichinae. The 

United States does not consider this mitigation measure to be necessary for U.S. pork as U.S. 

producers maintain stringent biosecurity protocols that serve to limit the prevalence of trichinae 

to extremely low levels in commercial swine. The United States will continue to work with the 

regulatory authorities in Kazakhstan and the CU to resolve this trade concern.

Ractopamine

It appears that Kazakhstan imposed a de facto ban on imports of all U.S. beef, pork, turkey, 

processed products containing beef, pork, or turkey, raw materials for casings, and casings, 

effective February 2013, based on detections of ractopamine residues in various beef and pork 

shipments to Russia, another CU country. Kazakhstan has not notified the United States 

regarding its ractopamine-related import restrictions. 
66

KENYA

Agricultural Biotechnology

Following a November 8, 2012, Kenyan Cabinet and Presidential decree, on November 21, 2012, 

the Kenyan Ministry of Public Health ordered public health officials to remove all foods, feed, 

and seeds derived from agricultural biotechnology from the market and to enforce a ban on 

agricultural biotechnology food and feed imports. U.S. officials are engaging with Kenya on the 

issue.

Food Safety

Poultry

Contrary to OIE guidelines, Kenya prevents the importation of live chicks from the United 

States, citing the presence of low pathogenic avian influenza in the United States. In addition, as 

with other meat products, the importation of poultry and poultry products, such as frozen chicken 

(whole bird and/or parts), eggs in shell for human consumption, and liquid or powdered egg 

products, requires a permit and a no-objection letter from Kenya’s Department of Veterinary 

Services (DVS). Prior to issuing a no-objection a letter, the DVS may, depending on the country 

of origin of the products, conduct a risk assessment. Moreover, the DVS may deny import 

permits based on “local market needs.” 

Plant Health

Corn

Kenya imposes a MRL for aflatoxin on corn of 10 ppb. Kenya also limits the maximum 

moisture content of corn to 13.5 percent. Both the moisture and aflatoxin standards apply to 

locally-sourced and imported corn. The 10 ppb aflatoxin limit is not scientifically justifiable; the 

CODEX and U.S. standard is 20 ppb. Moreover, most U.S. corn has moisture content higher 

than 13.5 percent and therefore cannot be imported into Kenya. However, under special 

circumstances, such as food shortages, the Government of Kenya has allowed the importation of 

corn with a moisture content above 13.5 percent, provided that the corn is dried and milled 

immediately upon arrival to reduce the risk of aflatoxin contamination.

Peas and Beans

Kenya does not permit the importation of whole peas from the United States due the risk of 

pseudomonas pisi fungus, although it allows the importation of split peas. Kenya also prohibits 

the importation of U.S. beans due to the occurrence of corynebacterium flaccumfasciens bacteria 

in some parts of the United States. Kenya’s prohibitions on the importation of U.S. beans and 

whole peas appear to lack a scientific basis. 

In addition, Kenya restricts the importation of U.S. lentils due to the presence of darnel weed in 

the United States. Darnel weed, however, also exists in Kenya, calling into question the 

justification for Kenya’s ban on U.S. lentils.
67

Wheat

Kenya maintained a long-standing prohibition on U.S. wheat exports due to flag smut. Although 

Kenya did not enforce the prohibition for some time, it began enforcing the prohibition in 2006. 

USDA subsequently worked with Kenyan officials, enabling them in 2007 to lift the ban except 

with respect to wheat shipped through Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. USDA continues to 

work with Kenya to allow wheat shipments from these States to enter Kenya.

Kenya’s SPS restrictions also impact U.S. wheat exports from the Pacific Northwest to Uganda. 

USDA continues to work with Kenya to resolve this issue. 

KOREA

Agricultural Biotechnology

Korea’s regulatory system for agricultural biotechnology has generated concern in recent years 

with regard to its lack of predictability and transparency. In 2008, Korea implemented the 

Living Modified Organisms Act (LMO Act), which regulates trade in agricultural biotechnology 

products, including food and seeds for use as feed or for processing. The United States has raised 

a number of issues related to the LMO Act and its implementing regulations, including concerns 

that certain import documentation requirements go beyond the current provisions of the 

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and that Korea’s process for reviewing product risk 

assessments may be redundant and lacking scientific justification. Korea’s process may lead to 

delays in the approval of new products. In addition, the United States is concerned that the LMO

Act, while nominally applying to all living GE organisms (i.e. plants and animals), was written 

solely with living modified plants in mind and thus does not readily apply to the trans-boundary

movement of living GE animals. 

In late 2012, Korea’s National Assembly approved revisions to the LMO Act. However, the 

United States remains concerned that the revisions did not provide for a distinction between seed 

and food or feed processing, or revise the redundant risk assessment process. Korea is expected 

to revise the implementing regulations to the Act in 2014 to reflect the recent changes to the Act 

itself.

In 2013, Korea completed approval of five new single biotech events for food use and two new 

single events for feed use. The United States will continue to engage with Korea to avoid 

disruptions to exports of U.S. biotech products. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Prior to 2008, Korea restricted the importation of U.S. beef and beef products due to BSE-related 

concerns. Following a 2008 bilateral agreement to fully re‐open Korea’s market to U.S. beef and 

beef products, Korean beef importers and U.S. exporters have operated according to a voluntary,
68

commercial understanding that imports of U.S. beef and beef products will be from animals less 

than 30 months of age, as a transitional measure, until Korean consumer confidence improves. 

To date, this agreement has been operating smoothly. In 2013, the U.S. exported $609 million 

worth of beef (including variety meats) to Korea, an increase of five percent from the same 

period last year, making Korea the fifth-largest export market for U.S. beef.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Maximum Residue Limits

Korea is in the process of shifting to a new “positive list” system for listing MRLs. As part of 

this process, Korea is applying new MRLs. U.S. grain and fruit exporters face a significant 

challenge in continuing their trade with Korea during the transition period because of the 

uncertainty about which specific MRLs will be applied. The United States will continue to 

encourage Korea to maintain its current list of MRLs to allow sufficient time for a smooth 

transition to a new positive list system. The United States will also continue to seek guidance 

from Korea on how U.S. pesticide manufacturers and registrants can effectively respond to the 

Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s requests for information used in the establishment of MRLs 

for imports. 

Korea has increased pesticide residue testing on U.S. commodities due to residue violations in 

U.S. shipments to other countries. After a single MRL violation by a U.S. export to either Korea 

or another country, Korea may impose restrictive import requirements on that product’s grower, 

shipper, and importer, and may require that they make a certain number of compliant shipments 

to Korea before removing those requirements.

See section III.E for an explanation of the MRL trade issue.

Potatoes

In August 2012, Korea prohibited the importation of fresh potatoes from the Pacific Northwest 

due to the presence of zebra chip in the region. Although Korea reopened its market to fresh 

chipping potatoes from the Pacific Northwest in September 2012, it continues to prohibit the 

importation of fresh table-stock potatoes from the Pacific Northwest. Korea does not have the 

insect that carries zebra chip from one potato plant to another, and the disease cannot be spread 

without this insect. Additionally, U.S. potatoes exported to Korea are treated with sprout 

inhibitor and are destined for consumption or processing – not propagation. Sprout-inhibited 

fresh potatoes destined for consumption or processing are not a phytosanitary threat. 

KUWAIT

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

In 2006, following the detection of a BSE-positive cow in Alabama, two government offices in 

Kuwait – the Kuwait Public Authority for Agriculture and Fishery Affairs and the Municipality 
69

of Kuwait – banned all live cattle and beef from Oklahoma, but not Alabama. USDA provided 

information to the Kuwait Public Authority for Agriculture and Fishery Affairs enabling it to 

remove its ban on live cattle and beef from Oklahoma. However, the Municipality of Kuwait has 

refused to remove its ban on beef produced in Oklahoma. The United States will continue to 

urge Kuwait to open its market fully to U.S. beef and beef products based on science, the OIE

guidelines, and the United States’ negligible risk status for BSE.

See section III.C for a discussion of the BSE trade issue.

KYRGYZSTAN

Food Safety

Poultry

In November 2013, Kyrgyzstan conducted an inspection of three U.S. poultry establishments 

without the knowledge of U.S. authorities. Kyrgyzstan subsequently restricted poultry imports 

from the United States to these three establishments without notifying the United States. The 

United States has protested the lack of a formal notification of Kyrgyzstan’s intent to conduct 

inspections, restrict market access and the absence of any science-based justification for these 

restrictions. The United States has also urged Kyrgyzstan to lift its restrictions on poultry 

imports from the United States and to conduct an audit of the U.S. sanitary system for poultry in 

a manner consistent with international standards.

MACEDONIA

Food Safety

In what appears to be a consequence of Macedonia adopting EU certificate attestations, 

Macedonia stopped accepting the FSIS meat inspection system as equivalent to Macedonia’s, 

and stopped accepting the standard FSIS export certificate. As a result, Macedonia also stopped 

accepting imports of U.S. pork. The U.S. government is working with the Government of

Macedonia to agree on a pork export certificate that does not impose any non-scientific barriers 

to trade and that will allow the importation of U.S. pork to resume.

See section III.A for an explanation of the export certification trade issue.

MALAYSIA

Agricultural Biotechnology

Although GE crops are not generally approved for planting in Malaysia, the Malaysian 

government recently allowed GE papaya trials. GE crop events are only supposed to be sold in 

the Malaysian market if they have been approved for food, feed, and processing. While 

Malaysia has approved a few corn and soybean GE events for release on the market, bulk 

shipments of corn and soybeans face the risk of rejection if a variety that has not yet been 
70

approved is detected. Malaysia published new GE labeling guidelines last year that will be 

enforced starting in July 2014, including for processed food.

Food Safety

Pork

In June 2011, Malaysia’s Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) stopped issuing import 

permits for frozen and chilled pork products from the United States. At that time, DVS instituted 

new requirements for the exportation of pork to Malaysia, which include a requirement that

representatives of pork production companies submit a lengthy application for each facility that 

will be used to produce products for the Malaysian market, and that each such facility undergo

an audit by DVS at the expense of the producer or the producer’s government. Malaysia will 

only grant an import permit for the shipment of pork from a facility upon successful completion 

of these procedures. The United States has raised concerns over these requirements with 

Malaysia on multiple occasions and is actively working towards a resolution to regain access for

U.S. pork exports. DVS has agreed to conduct a systems audit of the U.S. sanitary system for 

pork in early 2014 with the goal of moving towards reopening Malaysia’s market to U.S. pork 

products.

MEXICO

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

In March 2004, Mexico became one of the first major markets previously closed to U.S. beef and 

beef products due to BSE concerns to reopen. However, through 2013, Mexico retained 

prohibitions on the importation of U.S. beef derived from animals over 30 months of age. Until 

2012, Mexico also retained restrictions on the importation of U.S. weasand meat, ground beef, 

head meat, and small intestines from cattle under 30 months of age. However, in the fall of 

2012, the United States and Mexico reached agreement to allow the importation of these 

products from the United States, provided they meet certain requirements. 

Moreover, in response to the OIE’s recognition last year of the negligible risk status of the 

United States with respect to BSE, Mexico notified the United States on September 27, 2013 that 

U.S. beef products would be authorized for importation into Mexico regardless of the age of the 

cattle from which they were derived, with the exception of traditional SRMs. The United States 

and Mexico are currently working to finalize a set of agreed veterinary certifications for the 

exportation to Mexico of U.S. beef derived from cattle over 30 months of age. In addition, the 

United States has submitted a proposal to Mexico to permit the exportation of U.S. live cattle to 

Mexico.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.
71

Dairy

Mexico refuses to allow the importation of unpasteurized commercial milk from the United 

States until it completes a risk assessment on the safety of U.S. unpasteurized commercial milk. 

However, Mexico has not initiated this risk assessment due to budgetary and personnel 

limitations. As a result, the United States is unable to send unpasteurized milk to Mexico for 

further processing. The United States will continue to urge Mexico to undertake the necessary 

risk assessment for this product.

Stone Fruit

U.S. peach, nectarine, and apricot growers encounter problems exporting to Mexico due to 

Mexico’s requirements to control the oriental fruit moth and other pests considered to be 

quarantine pests by Mexico. The United States has worked to address these measures as they 

apply to growers in California, Georgia, South Carolina, and the Pacific Northwest.

California

Under the California Stone Fruit Work Plan, Mexico imposes a high level of direct oversight 

on the operations of California stone fruit producers shipping to Mexico as a condition for

access to Mexico’s market. This program requires the U.S. industry to pay for several 

inspectors representing the Mexican government to inspect their operations for the oriental

fruit moth and other pests. The United States has sought to reduce the expensive Mexican 

government oversight of U.S. producers through on-going bilateral discussions. A draft 

protocol that would reduce oversight requirements is under discussion.

Georgia and South Carolina

In 2008, USDA asked Mexico to open its market for stone fruit from Georgia and South 

Carolina. Mexico agreed to complete a PRA in connection with the request. During technical 

discussions in January 2011, Mexico agreed to let Georgia and South Carolina export stone 

fruit in the absence of a completed PRA under a pilot project, based on the California Stone

Fruit Work Plan. Although the work plan is more stringent and expensive to implement than 

necessary, it allowed Georgia and South Carolina producers to begin shipping to Mexico in 

February 2011. In October 2011, due to interceptions of plum curculio, Mexico temporarily

suspended shipments. As an alternative to the work plan, Mexico has proposed allowing

importation of Georgia and South Carolina peaches using methyl bromide fumigation 

treatment under the direct oversight of Mexican inspectors. The industry is also interested in 

using irradiation treatment as a means of securing market access with reduced oversight by

Mexico. A draft PRA and proposed Irradiation Operational Work Plan are under review by

Mexico.

Pacific Northwest

USDA is awaiting a PRA from Mexico to address a request to allow peaches, nectarines, and 

plums from the Pacific Northwest to be shipped to Mexico. Mexico has stated that in the 
72

absence of the PRA, it would accept peaches, nectarines, and plums from this region only if 

they were produced under oversight similar to that conducted in California. Pacific 

Northwest producers believe that due to the low risk associated with the region, any Mexican 

export program should require minimal oversight. The United States and Mexico continue to 

have technical discussions on this issue.

MOROCCO

Food Safety and Animal Health

Morocco restricts imports of U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products due to concerns over BSE 

and growth hormones, and restricts imports of U.S. poultry and poultry products due to AI and 

Salmonella concerns. Morocco and the United States are working to reach agreement on 

sanitary certificates consistent with international standards that would allow U.S. producers to 

export these products to Morocco.

See section III.A for an explanation of the export certification trade issue, see section III.C for an 

explanation of the BSE trade issue, and see section III.D for an explanation of the AI trade issue.

NAMIBIA 

Food Safety

Poultry

In February 2013, Namibian authorities’ changed Namibia’s import requirements for poultry and 

poultry products. U.S. export certificates must now attest that products are derived from 

chickens hatched and reared in the United States. While the Namibian market for U.S. poultry 

was quite small, all poultry products imported into Namibia, including those destined for the 

larger Angolan market, must meet these requirements. Since a common practice in the U.S. 

poultry industry is to import from Canada one day old chicks, USDA is not able to certify to 

these requirements. Therefore, currently U.S. poultry or poultry products are not exported to 

Namibia. In September 2013, USDA officials met with the Namibian Acting Chief Veterinarian 

Officer to start negotiating new import permit language to allow entry of U.S. poultry into 

Namibia. USDA is currently reviewing the latest import language requirements provided by 

Namibia during the September 2013 meeting. 

NIGERIA 

Food Safety

Meat and Meat Products

Nigeria continues to ban imports of all bovine animal meat and edible offal (fresh, chilled, 

frozen) as well as pork, sheep, goats and edible offal of horses, asses and mules. While BSE is 

the stated rationale, these bans apply to all countries, even those without BSE cases. Nigeria also 

bans the import of live and dead poultry (with the exception of day-old chicks) and poultry meat, 
73

including fresh, frozen, and cooked poultry meat. While the stated rationale is to prevent the 

spread of AI, these bans were implemented during the 2006 AI outbreak and do not reflect 

current AI risk.

Import Certificates

Nigeria requires that all food, drug, cosmetic, and pesticide imports be accompanied by 

certificates from manufacturers and appropriate national authorities, regardless of origin. These 

certificates attest that the product is safe for human consumption (e.g., does not contain 

aflatoxin). However, Nigeria's limited capacity to review certificates, carry out inspections, and 

conduct testing has resulted in delays in the clearance of food imports. 

NORWAY

Agricultural Biotechnology

With limited exceptions, since 1996 Norway has effectively banned the importation of 

agricultural biotechnology products. The United States continues to press Norway to open its 

market to U.S. exports of those products.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Norway applies EU regulations that ban imports of meat from animals treated with growth 

hormones.

See the discussion of the EU’s hormone ban for more detail.

PERU

Agricultural Biotechnology

In December 2011, Peru adopted a ten-year moratorium on cultivation of biotech crops. The 

moratorium excluded products used in research in a confined environment, in pharmaceutical or

veterinary products, or GE products used for food, feed or processing. A risk assessment must 

be performed for these excepted products, and to date Peru has not conducted any GE-related 

risk assessments. The United States is concerned that Peru’s potential lack of capacity to 

conduct risk assessments for GE products and to test for the presence of GE products in imported 

commodities could create uncertainty in the market and potentially disrupt U.S. exports. In 

November 2012, Peru published Implementing Regulations for the enforcement of the 

moratorium. The regulations do not provide necessary practical guidance for implementation, 

such as specifying the sampling size or procedures for testing of imported seeds. The regulations 

also include steep penalties for the presence of GE materials in imported seeds, even if 

inadvertent or in low levels. The United States continues to raise concerns with Peru in 
74

multilateral and bilateral meetings and to ask Peru to formally notify the implementing 

regulations at the TBT Committee in Geneva, as required by the TBT Agreement. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

Food Safety

Pork

Peru requires U.S. pork be shipped to its market frozen or be tested due to concern over 

trichinae. The United States believes that this requirement is unnecessary as U.S. producers 

maintain stringent biosecurity protocols that serve to limit the incidence of trichinosis in the 

United States to extremely low levels. The United States has requested that Peru revise these 

requirements for fresh and chilled pork and provided evidence to Peru in May 2012 that supports 

this request. The United States raised the issue at the United States-Peru FTA SPS Committee 

meeting in June 2012. In March 2013, Peru requested the United States to complete a 

questionnaire so that it could initiate a risk assessment of pork shipments. The United States 

submitted the completed questionnaire in September 2013 and a response from Peru is pending. 

The United States will continue to engage Peru to resolve this trade concern. 

Animal Health

Live Cattle

Peru continues to ban all U.S. live cattle due to BSE‐related concerns following the detection of 

a BSE-positive animal in the United States in 2003. Prior to April 2010, Peru and the other three 

CAN Member States (Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador) maintained that CAN rules prevented 

them from lifting their BSE‐related restrictions on live cattle. In 2009, the United States 

submitted comments on a proposed risk assessment published by CAN that stipulated that only 

live animals under 24 months of age could be imported. CAN Resolution 1314, published April 

2010, stipulated that all CAN Member States are able to elaborate their own requirements 

regarding the importation of live cattle from the United States in accordance with the CAN risk 

assessment.

USDA provided updated information to Peru in May 2012 to support the U.S. request for market 

access, and the U.S. officials subsequently raised the issue with Peruvian counterparts the June 

2012 meeting of the United States-Peru FTA SPS Committee. In September 2013, the United 

States answered questions from Peru in a new proposal addressing BSE and other disease 

concerns and is awaiting a response from Peru. The United States will continue to engage with 

Peru to re‐open its market for U.S. live cattle based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the 

negligible risk status of the United States.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.
75

PHILIPPINES

Food Safety

Meat Handling Regulations

The Philippines maintains a two-tiered system for regulating the handling of frozen and freshly 

slaughtered meat for sale in local “wet” markets. This system imposes excessively-high 

requirements on the handling of frozen meat, which is primarily imported, that do not apply to 

the handling of freshly slaughtered meat, which is exclusively domestic. Despite numerous 

requests from the United States, the Philippines has not shared a risk assessment to support its 

treatment of frozen and freshly slaughtered meat. The United States has raised concerns with the 

Philippine government on numerous occasions and will continue to press the Philippines to 

address this issue.

SPS Import Clearance

The Philippines Department of Agriculture requires importers to obtain an SPS permit prior to 

shipment for any agricultural product and transmit the permit to the exporter. This requirement 

adds costs, complicates the timing of exports, and prevents the transshipment of products to the 

Philippines originally intended for other markets. It also prevents an exporter from reselling 

product if the importer refuses to accept delivery or abandons the shipment. The United States 

will continue to engage with the Philippines to address this issue. 

RUSSIA

Systemic Issues

Russia is obligated, like all other WTO Members, to ensure that its SPS measures comply with 

the requirements of the SPS Agreement (e.g., they are based on scientific principles, not 

maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, and are only applied to the extent necessary to 

protect human, animal, or plant life or health). Russia must also comply with its commitments 

on SPS matters contained in its protocol of accession to the WTO.

The process of harmonizing and revising SPS measures among the CU countries, Russia, 

Kazakhstan and Belarus, is ongoing. On July 1, 2010, the CU implemented harmonized 

veterinary requirements stipulating that imports for all products subject to veterinary control are 

eligible for entry only if they are produced in facilities on a list approved by all three CU 

countries. The United States worked with Russia and CU authorities to remove products from 

the list of goods subject to veterinary control where no scientific basis supporting their inclusion 

was apparent, to eliminate the requirement that the United States provide a list of all facilities 

that meet CU requirements for low risk goods subject to veterinary control, and to streamline the

approval of U.S. facilities. The CU countries have amended the CU agreements to align some of

the veterinary requirements with international standards, recommendations, and guidelines. 

However, much of this work remains ongoing. 
76

U.S. exporters also continue to face systemic issues in Russia related to the certification of 

agricultural products. In particular, Russia requires export certificates for products for which 

certifications are unnecessary or are otherwise unwarranted. For example, Russia requires

phytosanitary attestations for shipments of certain processed agricultural products, such as corn 

gluten, which, due to the nature of the processing process, do not present a pest risk. Likewise,

Russia requests U.S. exporters to submit certifications stating that the United States is free from

various livestock diseases, even where there is no risk of transmission from the product in 

question. To date, the United States has not received scientific justifications nor risk assessments 

for many of Russia’s SPS requirements. The United States will continue to engage with Russia

to modify these requirements and to supply scientific justifications, where appropriate.

In November 2006, the United States and Russia signed bilateral agreements to address SPS 

issues related to: trade in pork, beef and beef by‐products, biotech agricultural products, and 

certifications for U.S. pork and poultry establishments that export products to Russia. However, 

there have been implementation problems with several of these agreements. For example, under 

the November 2006 U.S.‐Russia agreement on inspection of meat and poultry establishments, 

Russia agreed to grant U.S. regulatory officials the authority to certify new U.S. establishments 

and U.S. establishments that have remedied a deficiency. In accordance with the agreement, 

Russia also agreed to specific deadlines for responding to requests to list facilities that U.S. 

authorities had inspected and determined to be in compliance with the requirements to export to 

Russia. In practice, however, Russia has not consistently recognized the authority of U.S. 

regulatory officials to certify additional U.S. facilities, and there have been delays in responding 

to U.S. requests to update the list of approved U.S. facilities.

The CU now has competence for establishment inspections and approvals. The United States 

worked with Russia and CU authorities to negotiate a new CU inspection regulation that allows 

the CU to accept guarantees provided by SPS authorities in third countries that certify new 

establishments. However, implementation of this regulation has lacked predictability and 

transparency, because CU countries often continue to insist on conducting their own inspections 

prior to approval of an establishment, without providing any rationale. The United States will 

work closely with Russia to revise CU inspection regulations and to improve its implementation. 

Veterinary Certificates

Russia and the CU require veterinary certificates to include broad statements by U.S. regulatory

officials that the products satisfy CU sanitary and veterinary requirements, including meeting

certain chemical, microbiological, and radiological standards. This requirement is problematic

because many CU sanitary and veterinary requirements appear to lack scientific justification.

See section III.A for an explanation of the export certification trade issue.

Agricultural Biotechnology

Although Russia has established a system for the approval of GE food and feed products, the 

United States continues to have concerns with the implementation of this system, including

Russia's requirements for re‐registration of approved products and labeling of GE products. The 

United States has encouraged Russia to address these specific concerns, as well as to promote 
77

greater cooperation on agricultural biotechnology generally. In September 2013, Russia passed 

Resolution No. 839, which approved framework rules for the registration of genetically 

engineered organisms for release into the environment and authorized the development of 

procedures for such registration by July 1, 2014. Resolution No. 839 will not have any 

immediate effect on the cultivation of biotech crops in Russia, but creates an approval process to 

make such cultivation possible in the future. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

Food Safety

Pathogen Tolerances

Russia maintains a zero tolerance for all food products, including raw meat and poultry, for

Salmonella, Listeria, coliforms, and colony forming units of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. 

Such a policy is unwarranted with regard to raw products, because it is generally accepted by

food safety experts and scientists that these pathogens are often closely associated with raw meat 

and poultry product and cannot be removed from the product. 

Veterinary Drugs

Russia maintains a zero tolerance policy for residues of unapproved veterinary drugs, many of 

which are commonly used in U.S. animal production, as well as zero or near-zero tolerances for 

veterinary drugs approved in the United States. Findings of veterinary drug residues during

Russian border inspection of U.S. products have resulted in trade disruptions, including the 

unwarranted de-listings of U.S. beef, pork, and poultry facilities.

Ractopamine

In 2012, Russia began enforcing a zero tolerance standard for residues of ractopamine, a feed 

additive that promotes feed efficiency in pigs, cattle and turkey, despite U.S. government 

approval of use of this additive, establishment of a Codex standard, and scientific evidence

indicating that ractopamine can be used safely. Based on the presence of ractopamine in various 

beef and pork shipments, Russia banned all U.S. beef, pork, processed products containing beef 

or pork, turkey, raw materials for casings, and casings, effective on February 11, 2013. The 

United States will continue to work with the Russian veterinary service to restore market access 

for these U.S. meat products.

Beef and Beef Products

Currently, U.S. producers may export deboned and bone‐in beef to Russia from cattle under the 

age of 30 months and that meet the requirements set out in the U.S.‐Russia Bilateral Agreement 

on Trade in Beef. Following the completion of consultations regarding the CU veterinary 

requirements, the United States will continue negotiations with Russia and its CU partners of a

new sanitary certificate to allow for the export of U.S. deboned beef, bone‐in beef, and beef by‐

products from cattle over 30 months of age to resume. 
78

Current BSE attestations in Russia’s sanitary certificate for prepared meat effectively preclude 

any U.S. cooked beef from qualifying to be imported into Russia. Russia also maintains a ban on 

imports of ground beef from cattle of any age. The United States will continue to urge Russia to 

open its market fully to U.S. beef and beef products based on science, the OIE guidelines, and 

the United States’ BSE negligible risk status.

See section III.A for an explanation of the export certification trade issue, and section III.C for 

an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Milk and Milk Products

Russia has effectively banned the importation of U.S. dairy products since September 2010, 

when Rosselkhoznadzor (Russia’s Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary 

Surveillance) instructed customs officials to allow shipments only from exporters on 

Rosselkhoznadzor-approved lists. During WTO accession negotiations, the United States 

obtained a commitment from Russia that it would no longer require any foreign producer to be

included on Rosselkhoznadzor lists to be eligible to export dairy products. The United States 

continues to work with Russia and its CU partners to conclude a certificate to reopen the Russian 

market to U.S. dairy products. 

See section III.A for an explanation of the export certification trade issue.

Pork and Pork Products

Russia maintains near-zero tolerance levels for tetracycline‐group antibiotics. Russia agreed as 

part of its WTO accession commitments to submit a risk assessment for tetracycline antibiotics

conducted in accordance with Codex methodology or align its tetracycline standards with Codex 

standards. The United States, in cooperation with industry stakeholders, reviewed Russia’s risk 

assessment for tetracyclines and provided comments to Russia. The United States will to press 

Russia to ensure that its measures on this subject are based on science.

Russia also requires U.S. pork to be frozen or tested for trichinosis. Russia's requirements 

constitute a significant impediment to exports of U.S. fresh and chilled pork to Russia. The

United States does not consider these requirements to be necessary because U.S. producers

maintain stringent biosecurity protocols that limit the appearance of trichinae in the United States 

to extremely low levels in commercial swine. The United States will continue to work with 

regulatory authorities in Russia to resolve this trade concern.

Poultry

On January 1, 2010, Russia banned the importation and sale of chicken using chlorine as a PRT, 

essentially halting all imports of U.S. poultry into Russia. Bilateral negotiations led to the 

resumption of poultry imports in September 2010, but did not resolve the chlorine restriction 

itself. Russian regulations also place an upper limit on the amount of water content in chilled 

and frozen chicken, despite calls to adopt alternative labeling requirements regarding water 

content. In addition, Russia continues to ban the importation and sale of certain frozen poultry 

for use in baby food and special diets. Russia has not yet provided the United States with risk 
79

assessments to support these various regulations. The United States will continue to work with 

regulatory authorities in Russia to resolve this trade concern.

Animal Health

Pet Food and Animal Feed

Russia prohibits the use of most U.S. ruminant-origin ingredients in pet foods and animal feeds 

and has in place other restrictions and requirements that are impeding market access.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

SAUDI ARABIA

Beef and Beef Products

In May 2012, the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) banned the importation of U.S. beef 

and beef products due to the detection of a dairy cow with atypical BSE in California in April 

2012. The confirmed case of BSE was the first in the United States since 2006, and only the 

fourth in U.S. history. The dairy cow was 10 years of age and the meat never entered the food 

supply. Nevertheless, the Saudi government has stated that the ban will remain in place until 

SFDA and the Saudi Ministry of Agriculture have evaluated the risks and ensured the safety of 

imports of U.S. beef and beef products. The United States is seeking the removal of the ban in 

accordance with applicable SFDA procedures and has provided SFDA with technical 

information regarding the case. The United States has asked for a report prepared by SFDA 

determining whether audits of U.S. facilities must be performed and, if so, the details and costs 

of any such audits. The United States will continue to engage SFDA to resolve the issue and 

allow U.S. beef exports to Saudi Arabia’s market to resume. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

SENEGAL

Animal Health

Since 2005, Senegal has maintained a ban on imports of poultry meat and poultry products from 

all countries purportedly to prevent the introduction of HPAI. Senegal did not notify the ban to 

the WTO and has not provided a scientific justification for the measure, despite numerous 

requests from the United States. The United States will continue to work with Senegal to lift the 

ban with respect to U.S. poultry meat and poultry products and ensure that Senegal’s measures 

are based on science and international standards. 
80

SERBIA

Agricultural Biotechnology

Serbia does not currently permit imports of food products that contain trace amounts of 

agricultural biotechnology, but it has indicated it may amend its biotechnology law to be less 

restrictive in connection with its WTO accession process.

SINGAPORE

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Singapore prohibits the importation of all U.S. beef and beef products, except for deboned beef 

from animals under 30 months of age due to BSE concerns. The United States will continue to 

engage Singapore to open its market fully to U.S. beef and beef products based on science, the

OIE guidelines, and the United States’ BSE negligible risk status.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Beef, Pork and Poultry Pathogen Reduction Treatments

Prior to 2012, Singapore prohibited the use of all PRTs in the production of beef, pork and 

poultry products, which added significantly to the cost of exporting such products. Based on 

documentation provided by the United States regarding the safety of certain PRTs, Singapore

now allows the use of eight PRTs that have risk-assessments completed by the Joint FAO/WHO

Expert Committee on Food Additives. The United States will continue to work with Singapore

to approve additional PRTs.

Singapore also requires U.S. pork to be frozen or tested for trichinosis. The United States does 

not consider these requirements to be necessary since most U.S. producers maintain stringent 

biosecurity protocols that limit the presence of trichinae in the United States to extremely low 

levels in commercial swine. The United States will continue to work with regulatory authorities

in Singapore to resolve this trade concern.

SOUTH AFRICA

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

In June 2010, South Africa opened its market to U.S. deboned beef from cattle of all ages, but 

continues to ban the importation of all other beef cuts and beef products, as well as other U.S. 

ruminant animals and products. The United States will continue to urge South Africa to open its 
81

market fully to U.S. beef and beef products based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United 

States’ BSE negligible risk status.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Animal Health

Pork

South Africa imposes stringent time and temperature requirements on pork and pork products

due to concerns for pseudorabies and trichinae, including a 20‐day freezing requirement on U.S. 

pork to prevent the transmission of pseudorabies. In 1989, the United States started a voluntary 

eradication program for pseudorabies and, in 2004, the United States achieved the successful 

eradication of pseudorabies in commercial herds throughout all 50 states. The United States

does not consider requirements due to trichinae concerns to be necessary since most U.S. 

producers maintain stringent biosecurity protocols that limit the appearance of trichinae in the

United States to extremely low levels in commercial swine. The United States will continue to 

work with South Africa to obtain elimination of the current freezing requirement for

pseudorabies and trichinae.

SOUTH AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY

Agricultural Biotechnology

South African Development Community (SADC) Member States6 with the exception of South 

Africa, have banned the importation of agricultural biotechnology products since 2005. Pursuant 

to this ban, importers of agricultural products must present documents certifying that their goods 

do not include agricultural biotechnology products. However, there are limited exceptions to the 

ban. For example, grain from agricultural biotechnology‐derived varieties can be imported for 

food aid, but it must be milled or sterilized so as to render the grain incapable of germinating 

after arriving in the country. In addition, products of agricultural biotechnology imported for 

scientific research may be allowed, but subject to regulations and controls to be established by 

the various SADC Member States. In November, 2012, the United States held meetings with 

officials from SADC Member States regarding agricultural biotechnology and other innovative

technologies.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

 6 The SADC is a 15-country socio-economic cooperation and integration group composed of Angola, Botswana, the

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles,

South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
82

SRI LANKA

Agricultural Biotechnology

Sri Lanka currently prohibits the sale of GE seeds or products containing GE organisms intended 

for human consumption without the approval of Sri Lanka’s Chief Food Authority. Sri Lanka 

does not appear to have a functioning approval mechanism, and thus in effect imposes a de facto 

ban on sales of seeds and other agricultural products derived from GE. Further, Sri Lanka 

requires all commodity imports to be accompanied by a certification that the commodity is “nonGE.” The United States will continue to engage Sri Lanka on these issues.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

Beef and Beef Products

Sri Lanka continues to ban all imports of U.S. bovine products, including beef, beef products, 

and beef genetics following the detection of a BSE-positive animal in the United States in 2003. 

The United States will continue to urge Sri Lanka to open its market fully to U.S. beef and beef 

products based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ negligible risk status.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

SWITZERLAND

Agricultural Biotechnology

Switzerland has a burdensome and slow‐moving process for approving agricultural 

biotechnology products for food and feed use. In addition, in November 2005, Switzerland 

implemented a five‐year moratorium on approvals for the commercial cultivation of agricultural 

biotechnology crops, which was subsequently extended by an act of Parliament until November

2013. The Swiss Parliament is currently considering a possible extension of the moratorium 

until the end of 2017. U.S. officials will continue to urge their Swiss counterparts to address the 

cumbersome aspects of its regulatory review system and remove the moratorium on cultivation.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

TAIWAN

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Taiwan banned imports of U.S. beef and beef products following the detection of a BSE-positive 

animal in the United States in 2003. In 2006, Taiwan began allowing imports of U.S. deboned 

beef derived from animals under 30 months of age. In October 2009, the United States and 

Taiwan reached agreement on a Protocol expanding market access for U.S. beef and beef 

products (for human consumption) based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ 
83

controlled risk status. The Protocol defines the conditions for the exportation of U.S. beef and 

beef products to Taiwan and ultimately provides for a full re‐opening of the market. However, 

after the Protocol entered into force in November 2009, Taiwan’s legislature adopted an 

amendment to Taiwan’s Food Sanitation Act in January 2010 that, in effect, banned imports of

ground beef and certain offals and other beef products from the United States, contrary to 

Taiwan’s obligations under the Protocol. Moreover, Taiwan announced additional border 

measures, including a licensing scheme for permitted offal. Taiwan also imposed even stricter 

inspection requirements for certain “sensitive” beef offals (e.g., tongue) that discourage imports 

of these products.

The United States has raised these issues with Taiwan in various venues. At each opportunity, 

the United States has stated that it expects Taiwan to act consistently with its obligations under 

the Protocol. The United States will continue to urge Taiwan to open its market fully to U.S. 

beef and beef products based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ risk status.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Beta-agonists

In September 2012, Taiwan adopted and implemented an MRL for ractopamine in beef muscle 

cuts consistent with the Codex standard. However, Taiwan continues to delay the 

implementation of MRLs for ractopamine in other cattle derived products and for swine that it 

notified to the WTO in 2007. Taiwan’s lack of progress in adopting additional MRLs for pork 

has raised a significant concern because it forced U.S. pork producers to ship pork products 

selectively sourced from animals not treated with ractopamine. Since 2007, U.S. officials have 

raised this issue repeatedly at meetings of the WTO SPS Committee as well as in bilateral 

meetings with Taiwan, including meetings at the most senior levels. Taiwan authorities appear 

to have acknowledged in a number of public statements that trace amounts of ractopamine do not 

present a health risk. The United States continues to encourage Taiwan to implement the 

remaining proposed MRLs for ractopamine without further delay.

Taiwan currently maintains an unwarranted zero-tolerance policy for zilpaterol, a beta-agonist, in 

beef and has provided no risk assessment or science to support its policy. In October 2012, a 

sample of beef taken at the retail level by local health authorities tested positive for zilpaterol. 

Immediately after this incident was made public, U.S. beef importers with border inspection 

zilpaterol violations on record were subjected to unannounced inspections by local authorities, 

including product sampling. The United States will continue to raise its concerns about 

excessive inspection and testing. 

Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides

Taiwan’s slow and cumbersome process for adopting MRLs for pesticides has resulted in a 

substantial backlog of MRL applications and is creating a significant level of uncertainty within 

the U.S. agricultural export industry. Since 2006, this backlog has resulted in the rejection of 

various U.S. agricultural shipments (e.g., cherries, apples, wheat, barley, strawberries, potatoes, 

almonds, peaches and nectarines) due to the detection of pesticide or other crop protection 
84

compound residue levels that are within U.S. or Codex standards, but for which Taiwan has not 

yet established MRLs. 

While the United States is encouraged by Taiwan’s ongoing efforts to work through the backlog 

of MRL applications, shipments of U.S. agricultural products remain at risk of rejection due to 

the absence of MRLs for some commonly used pesticides, which have already undergone 

rigorous health and safety review in the United States. U.S. agricultural products that rely on 

newer, safer alternatives to older pesticides that are being phased out in the United States are 

particularly at risk of being rejected 

The United States is working closely with U.S. stakeholders to gather appropriate data for 

technical engagement with Taiwan to facilitate Taiwan’s establishment of MRLs for these 

newer, safer compounds. The United States continues to engage with Taiwan to reach a solution.

See section III.E for an explanation of the MRL trade issue.

Animal Health

Animal and Pet Feed

Taiwan bans the importation of all ruminant-origin ingredients (except milk, hide-derived gelatin 

and collagen, and dicalcium phosphate), as well as many non-ruminant-origin ingredients, 

intended for use in animal feeds and pet foods due to BSE-related concerns. Prohibited 

ingredients include protein-free tallow, bovine blood, bovine bone-derived gelatin, and all 

rendered meals regardless of species of origin (except hydrolyzed feather meal). Additionally, 

U.S.‐origin pet foods containing animal-origin ingredients other than those originating from 

milk, fish, hide-derived gelatin, dicalcium phosphate and/or collagen, exported to Taiwan must 

originate from U.S. facilities that have been inspected and approved by Taiwan’s Bureau of 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine. The approval process is lengthy, taking a 

minimum of 18 months to two years, and requires the facilities to submit extensive applications.

The Taiwan Council of Agriculture (COA) has proposed to amend the requirements for 

importation of dog and cat food. The U.S. submitted comments on September 10, 2013, for 

COA’s review. In the proposed rule, Taiwan appears to be moving toward allowing the use of 

OIE safe-to-trade items in dog and cat food although some restrictions due to BSE concerns may 

still remain. APHIS is requesting to approve the facilities which would like to export dog and 

cat food to Taiwan. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.
85

THAILAND

Animal Health

Animal-Derived Products

Thailand bans the importation of most ruminant-origin products (including essentially BSE-risk 

free commodities, such as blood), and many non-ruminant origin commodities intended for use 

in pet foods or for livestock feed due to BSE-related concerns. Thailand also requires inspection 

and approval of U.S. manufacturing facilities that produce certain animal-derived products as a 

condition for approval for importation.

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Thailand restricts the importation of U.S. beef and beef products due to the detection of a BSE 

positive animal in the United States in 2003. Currently, Thailand allows imports of U.S. 

deboned beef from animals less than 30 months of age. In 2012, Thailand published new rules 

that largely align its BSE-related requirements with OIE guidelines. In August 2013, a team 

from the Thai Department of Livestock and Development conducted an audit of the U.S. beef 

production system as a step towards reopening the market fully to U.S. beef, but the results of 

that audit are still pending. The United States will continue to urge Thailand to open its market 

fully to U.S. beef and beef products based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ 

negligible BSE risk status.

See section III C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Ractopamine

In 2012, after the Codex established MRLs for ractopamine in cattle and pig tissues, Thailand 

indicated it would lift its ban on imports of pork from countries that allow the use of 

ractopamine. However, Thailand has not yet established MRLs for ractopamine in pork, which 

in effect continues to prevent imports of U.S. product. The United States has encouraged 

Thailand to act quickly to establish domestic MRLs.

Import Fees

Thailand imposes food safety inspection fees in the form of import permit fees on all shipments 

of uncooked meat. Current fees are $160 per ton for red meat (beef, buffalo, goat, lamb, and 

pork) and offals, and $320 per ton for poultry meat. Equivalent fees for domestic meat 

inspections, however, are significantly lower at $5 per ton for beef, $21 per ton for poultry, $16 

per ton for pork, and zero for offals. The domestic fees are levied in the form of slaughtering or 

slaughterhouse fees. The United States will continue to press Thailand to eliminate or equalize

the fees and ensure that the import fees are commensurate with the services provided and the 

costs incurred.
86

TURKEY

Agricultural Biotechnology 

In 2010, Turkey implemented a new, overarching Biosafety Law, which immediately negated the 

approvals of agricultural biotechnology products granted under Turkey’s previous biotechnology 

regulation and effectively stopped all trade in products derived from agricultural biotechnology 

(primarily soy and corn products). Turkey indicated that it intended to follow EU practices in 

implementing the Biosafety Law and limit its review of agricultural biotechnology products, at 

least initially, to those already approved in the EU. 

In October 2010, Turkey’s Biosafety Board began an expedited review of three agricultural

biotechnology soybean products grown in the United States and approved for import into the EU. 

The Board approved these products for feed use in January 2011. In March 2011, the Biosafety

Board began non-expedited reviews of all other EU approved agricultural biotechnology

products, including soy for food use; corn for food and feed use; and canola, sugar beets, and 

potatoes for feed use. In December, 2011, the Biosafety Board approved 13 agricultural 

biotechnology corn products for feed use. In February 2012, the Board approved three additional 

corn products, but rejected six others. In December 2013, Turkey repealed the approvals for two 

biotech corn traits. The United States has submitted comments to Turkey on the Biosafety

Board’s decisions and will continue to work with Turkey to obtain approvals for additional U.S. 

biotech products.

Biotech developers have been reluctant to submit their products for approval under Turkey’s 

Biosafety Law, because a number of essential details of the approval process remain unclear, 

including what may constitute a failure of compliance and, in situations of noncompliance, what 

level and kind of penalties will apply. In September 2011, U.S. and Turkish industry

representatives began a dialogue with Turkey’s Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock 

(MinFAL) to discuss these concerns, but these discussions have failed to resolve the industry’s 

concerns.

In April 2011, MinFAL issued instructions to all port officials to begin testing imports for the

presence of agricultural biotechnology products, including corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets, 

potato, and tomato. As a result, imports of U.S. cotton were blocked until importers agreed to 

certify that cotton imports do not contain living modified organisms. Turkey does not accept 

pre-export testing, which places the risk on the exporter if the import is blocked as a result of the 

detection of an unapproved biotechnology product.

In September 2011, Turkey adopted a measure that allows for up to 0.1 percent presence in 

animal feed of agricultural biotechnology products that are under review or whose approval has 

expired. Such a low threshold has little practical value, and the United States continues to urge 

Turkey to increase the 0.1 percent threshold and to extend the provision to food products.

Turkey’s policy on low level presence led to the indictment of two importers for the import of 

U.S. rice in April 2013 that tested positive for biotech traits, one of which was later confirmed to 

be 0.04 percent soybean that is approved for feed use only. In August 2013, Turkey added U.S. 

wheat products to the list of one hundred percent required testing due to the reported detection of 
87

an unapproved biotech event in Oregon. The two repealed corn traits (discussed above) were 

added to the list of unapproved traits port officials test for at import. Turkey conducts a 

positive/negative test, and if positive, tests for each of the unapproved traits. 

The United States has repeatedly raised concerns about specific provisions of the 2010 Biosafety 

Law and its implementing regulations with Turkish officials, including most recently at the May 

2013 meeting under the bilateral Economic Partnership Commission. The United States will 

continue to engage Turkey on this issue both bilaterally and in multilateral fora.

See section III.B for an explanation of the agricultural biotechnology trade issue.

Food Safety

Meat

Turkey prohibits imports of red meat from the United States. In September 2010, Turkey 

expressed its intention to engage in discussions on opening its market to U.S. beef and beef 

products, plus cattle and sheep. However, Turkey’s proposed import conditions appear to 

deviate from OIE guidelines for BSE. In September 2010, Turkey allowed the imports of sheep 

and goats for breeding and production, and in March 2012 the United States and Turkey agreed 

upon language to finalize the export of breeding and fattening cattle to Turkey. The United 

States continues to work with Turkey to allow the export of live cattle for slaughter. The United 

States will continue to urge Turkey to open its market fully to U.S. live cattle for slaughtering, 

beef, and beef products based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ negligible 

risk status.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Dioxin Certification

In June 2013, Turkey began to require dioxin-free certification for imports of animal feed and pet 

food products. This new requirement negates Turkey’s 2006agreement that imports from the 

United States did not require such certifications. Turkey has not provided any evidence that 

products from the United States contain dioxins or violate Turkish requirements. 

Food Additives

On June 30, 2013, Turkey published a regulation restricting the use of monosodium glutamate 

and six other food additives in “traditional” meat products. These products are listed in an annex 

to the regulation and are broadly-defined to include virtually all meat products. The U.S. 

government will continue to engage Turkey on this issue both bilaterally and in multilateral fora.
88

UKRAINE

Food Safety

Pork

Ukraine requires U.S. pork to be shipped frozen or tested for trichinosis. Ukraine’s testing 

requirement is costly and is a significant impediment to U.S. fresh/chilled pork exports to 

Ukraine. The United States does not consider such requirements to be necessary because most 

U.S. producers maintain stringent biosecurity protocols that limit the appearance of trichinae in 

the United States to extremely low levels in commercial swine. The United States will work 

with regulatory authorities in Ukraine to resolve this trade concern.

URUGUAY

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Uruguay continues to ban imports of all U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products following the 

detection of a BSE-positive animal in the United States in 2003. In November 2013, Uruguay 

formally accepted the OIE May 2013 recognition of the United States as having negligible risk 

for BSE and agreed not to impose BSE conditions on U.S imports. However, access for cattle 

and beef and beef products is pending bilateral agreement on certificate conditions. The United 

States will continue to work with Uruguay to open its market fully to U.S. live cattle, beef, and 

beef products based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ negligible BSE risk 

status.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.

Animal Health

Poultry

Uruguay currently bans imports of U.S. fresh and frozen poultry due to concerns over AI and 

END, but the United States and Uruguay have been working towards the resolution of the issue. 

In October 2007, the United States and Uruguay reached an agreement that permitted imports of

U.S. turkey to resume. 

In December 2011, Uruguay completed its END evaluation of the United States and recognized 

the United States as free of END and HPAI. In September 2013, as a next step towards access, 

Uruguay conducted an audit of the U.S. poultry system. The United States continues to work 

with Uruguay on this issue to pave the way for U.S. poultry producers to export fresh and frozen 

poultry to Uruguay.
89

Plant Health

Potatoes

Uruguay represents an important market for U.S. seed potatoes. In 2012, U.S. and Uruguayan 

technical agencies implemented an optional pre-sampling protocol for exporters of U.S. seed 

potatoes. Under this protocol, shipments are pre-screened to facilitate the agricultural inspection 

process at the Uruguayan ports-of-entry, which reduces the chances that U.S. shipments are 

delayed or rejected due to plant pest and disease concerns. Nevertheless, Uruguay’s tolerance 

level for a fungus that causes powdery scab remains a concern for U.S. exporters because it 

appears to be set at an inappropriately low level. The United States will continue to work with 

Uruguay to address outstanding concerns relating to Uruguay’s existing tolerance levels.

VENEZUELA

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Venezuela continues to ban imports of all U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products following the 

detection of a BSE-positive animal in the United States in 2003. The United States urges

Venezuela to open its market fully to U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products based on science, 

the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ negligible BSE risk status.

VIETNAM

General

Vietnam is working to ensure that its SPS regime is consistent with international standards. 

However, in April 2010, Vietnam proposed a series of SPS measures purportedly to address 

broad food safety concerns, but which appear to have unnecessarily restricted trade. The United 

States continues to urge Vietnam to adopt SPS measures consistent with international standards 

as they relate to the importation of meat and meat by‐products.

In May 2006, the United States and Vietnam concluded an agreement in which Vietnam agreed

to recognize the U.S. food safety and inspection systems for beef, pork, and poultry as equivalent 

to its own inspection system. Although granting equivalence was an important and welcome

step that signaled Vietnam’s commitment to developing a science‐based system for furthering

trade, Vietnam does not appear to have yet adopted other food safety standards promulgated by 

international standard‐setting organizations, such as the OIE.

In April 2012, Vietnam issued Decree 38, an implementing regulation for its comprehensive 

Food Safety Law. Decree 38 is broad in scope, covering regulations for a wide variety of 

horticultural, seafood, and meat products and applies to foreign suppliers and domestic 

producers. The United States is concerned with Decree 38’s lack of transparency and its onerous 

conformity assessment procedure. The United States has raised this issue bilaterally with 
90

Vietnam on several occasions, including on the margins of TPP meetings and the WTO SPS 

Committee. 

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

During bilateral negotiations with the United States over its accession to the WTO, Vietnam 

agreed to allow imports of U.S. beef and beef products from cattle less than 30 months old. 

Since 2007, the United States and Vietnam have been negotiating animal health requirements to 

facilitate the trade in live cattle, beef, and beef products. In July 2011, the two sides agreed on 

requirements for the exporting live cattle to Vietnam. The United States will continue to urge 

Vietnam to open its market fully to U.S. beef and beef products based on science, the OIE 

guidelines, and the United States’ negligible BSE risk status.

See section III.C for a description of the BSE trade issue.

Offal Products

In July 2010, Vietnam implemented a “temporary ban” on the importation of offal products from 

all countries. Vietnam claimed there were food safety concerns that justified implementing the 

ban, but, to date, has provided no scientific data to the WTO or any trading partner to support 

this allegation. In April 2011, Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 

(MARD) partially lifted the ban by allowing imports of pork and poultry hearts, livers and 

kidneys (what Vietnam describe as “red offals”). In May 2011, Vietnam lifted the ban with 

respect to imports of bovine-origin hearts, livers and kidneys. However, all other offal products 

(or “white offals”) remain banned. In September, 2013 Vietnam indicated that its market was 

open fully to imports of red and white offal. In February 2014, MARD agreed with the United 

States on the terms and conditions necessary to resume trade. The United States will monitor 

implementation closely. 

Products of Animal Origin

In May 2010, Vietnam issued a new regulation, Circular 25, which outlines food hygiene and 

safety standards for imported foods of animal origin. The regulation requires producers to 

provide extensive information on their individual facilities, including proprietary information, in 

order for foods produced in those facilities to remain eligible for exportation to Vietnam.

The United States continues to work with Vietnam on resolving long term issues related to this 

regulation, including exporting company registration requirements and the need for a transparent, 

timely and consistent review and approval process for new applicants. 

Products of Plant Origin

In July 2011, Vietnam began enforcing new regulations on imported goods of plant origin. The 

United States has raised concerns regarding exporter registration requirements, sampling rates, 

and the coverage of MRLs. The United States will continue to work with Vietnam to address its 

concerns.
91

V. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The United States seeks to ensure that governments base their SPS measures on science and risk 

assessments and refrain from using SPS measures as disguised restrictions on international trade. 

To this end, the United States is committed to cooperating with trading partners on SPS issues 

and to providing technical assistance, where appropriate, to help other countries meet their 

international obligations and facilitate trade in agricultural products. To accomplish these goals, 

the United States has incorporated SPS objectives into a wide variety of bilateral cooperation and 

assistance programs. The technical assistance provided by the United States has helped many 

developing countries build their SPS regulatory infrastructure, which reduces food safety risks of 

products imported to the United States and opens new export markets for U.S. food and 

agricultural products.

Article 9 of the SPS Agreement provides that “Members agree to facilitate the provision of 

technical assistance to other Members, especially developing country Members, either bilaterally 

or through the appropriate international organizations.” This type of assistance is intended to 

help Members comply with SPS measures in export markets. The SPS Agreement, however, 

does not address technical cooperation and assistance with respect to Members’ efforts to 

implement the SPS Agreement in their own markets. For this reason, Members have raised 

concerns in the SPS Committee about technical constraints affecting the ability of developing 

countries to comply with certain provisions of the SPS Agreement. In particular, some Members 

have noted the substantial technical and resource demands associated with quantitative or other 

advanced risk assessment techniques and have requested assistance to improve the capabilities of 

developing countries to conduct such assessments. The United States strongly supports 

increased technical cooperation and assistance, including efforts in APEC, and the Standards and 

Trade Development Facility (STDF) to improve the risk assessment capabilities of all Members. 

The STDF is a global partnership that supports developing countries in building their capacity to 

implement international SPS standards, guidelines, and recommendations as a means to improve 

their human, animal, and plant health status and ability to gain or maintain access to markets.

Trade Capacity Building

U.S. trade capacity building efforts in the SPS area seek to foster a clear understanding of key 

SPS provisions in multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. Programs focus on the key 

requirement that SPS measures be supported by science, the fundamentals of risk assessment, 

and the most effective way to build and administer SPS regulatory programs. Forms of 

assistance include conducting regional trade capacity building workshops, conferences, hands-on 

training programs, mentorships, and site visits to U.S. research facilities.

The United States administers a number of programs to build expertise in foreign countries 

regarding agricultural biotechnology, food safety, animal health, and plant health. Fostering a 

cadre of specialists who support science-based health and safety measures improves the safety of 

products imported to the United States and facilitates transparent and predictable market access 

for U.S. exports. USDA and FDA implement many of these technical assistance activities in 

partnership with other U.S. government agencies, international organizations, U.S. universities, 

agri-businesses, and private consultants. This technical assistance not only increases developing 

country partners’ capacity to access the benefits of increased agricultural trade, but also builds 
92

understanding of the U.S. SPS regulatory system, provides the United States with key partners 

within ministries of agriculture, health, and trade, and allows the United States to promote the 

adoption of SPS measures that are harmonized with science-based international SPS standards. 

Harmonization with international standards reduces potential risks posed by imports from our 

partner countries to American consumers and American agriculture and allows for increased U.S. 

agricultural exports.

In response to new obligations under the U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act and an interest in 

preventing problems in the global food safety supply chain, FDA is working with new and 

existing partners to broaden the reach of food safety technical assistance and capacity building. 

One such example is its partnership with the Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied 

Nutrition (JIFSAN) to provide food safety technical assistance. In 2011, JIFSAN created the 

International Food Safety Training Laboratory (IFSTL) to increase laboratory capacity and 

deliver laboratory-based training to scientists suitable for monitoring food safety compliance. 

JIFSAN also offers an integrated training program on food safety risk analysis principles that 

covers risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication. In addition, JIFSAN 

conducts numerous food safety training programs on good agricultural practices, good 

aquaculture practices, food safety inspections, and commercially sterilized processed foods. 

JIFSAN works collaboratively with a local organization (e.g., a government agency or trade 

group) to host these training programs and arrange associated site visits. Since 2000, 60 such 

programs have been offered in 22 different countries. Building on these efforts, JIFSAN and 

FDA explored ways to leverage existing resources through the development of in-country 

partnerships to increase the cadre of in-country trainers. These efforts led to the development of 

the JIFSAN Collaborative Food Safety Training Initiative. There are currently five such 

initiatives currently being established in different countries. Support for these activities is part of 

a long-term capacity-building program by the United States aimed at strengthening the safety of 

imports and the food safety systems of other countries, including the testing methods foreign 

government laboratories use to meet U.S. and international standards.

In fiscal year 2013, FDA coordinated and organized 53 visits for 607 foreign nationals from 

governments, industry, academia and the public sector, seeking to learn more about FDA’s food 

regulations and related food safety programs in order to meet U.S. food safety standards.

Trade capacity building is one way that the U.S. Government seeks to ensure that foreign 

governments utilize SPS measures to enhance their food safety systems and do not use SPS 

measures to restrict trade. By supporting the adoption and effective implementation of sciencebased standards in other countries, the U.S. Government helps to enhance food safety systems 

globally, prevent problems in the global supply chain, lower unwarranted barriers to trade and 

expand market access for U.S. agricultural and food products.

The following section provides descriptions of U.S. technical assistance on SPS-related issues 

for various regions and countries. This list is not meant to be comprehensive, but highlights 

some of the most important activities in 2013.
93

Regional Activities

In 2013, USDA held regional workshops in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean for 

developing country delegates to various Codex committees. These workshops provided 

delegates with an opportunity to learn about the Codex process and improved understanding and 

support from many developing countries for science-based decisions in Codex committees. With 

greater participation of developing countries in international meetings, Codex decisions will 

better reflect the views of all of its members, while protecting consumers and facilitating trade.

USDA also is working with the STDF, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the African 

Union, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture IICA, and others to coordinate 

global pesticide residue field trials. These global partnerships are an outcome of USDA’s 

continuing program of providing technical assistance to developing countries in conducting 

pesticide field trials. The goal of these partnerships is to promote common pesticide MRLs to 

facilitate trade. Working with other countries to promote the use of common MRLs serves to 

minimize detention or rejection of U.S. exports at foreign ports of entry for residue violations, 

because there will be fewer instances when U.S. MRLs differ (either because the levels are 

different, or because those pesticides are not registered in the export market country) from those 

of its export markets.

In the past year, USDA cooperated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. university 

partners to conduct Food Defense International Awareness workshops in Brazil and Honduras. 

Food defense is the protection of the food supply from intentional contamination. These 

workshops provided a forum for representatives of government, industry, and law enforcement to 

discuss the challenges posed by the intentional contamination of the food supply and find costeffective ways to address these challenges. They also provide a forum to discuss any new 

government regulations to help ensure that these regulations are based on scientific evidence and 

are harmonized among countries so as to cause the least amount of disruption to trade.

USDA also sponsored participants from various countries to attend U.S.-based courses in 

veterinary epidemiology, risk analysis, plant disease diagnostics, animal diseases, laboratory 

diagnostic networks, and building sound regulatory frameworks. USDA held these courses in 

various locations in the United States, including Fort Collins, Colorado; Raleigh, North Carolina; 

Washington, DC; Plum Island, New York; and Ames, Iowa. Key SPS officials from developing 

countries attended the courses where they were able to increase their knowledge and receive a 

more in-depth understanding of the rationale and science behind the U.S. SPS regulatory system. 

This improved understanding promotes increased trust in the U.S. regulatory system on the part 

of key officials in other countries, helping to facilitate the export of U.S. food and agricultural 

products.

USDA sponsored 19 Cochran Fellows from Brazil, Dominica, Egypt, Guatemala, Honduras, 

Iraq, Jordan, Liberia, Malaysia, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago to attend the FSIS Meat and 

Poultry Inspection Seminar for International Government Officials. This training familiarized 

foreign government officials with inspection regulations and procedures used by USDA to 

ensure that the nation's meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, and properly 

labeled. The seminar covered a range of issues, including Hazard Analysis and Critical Control 

Points and pathogen reduction; animal production; import and export policies and procedures; 
94

the roles of FDA, state, and local inspection agencies; and field visits to import and export 

locations, and processing and slaughter plants. In addition to providing training to the Fellows, 

this program demonstrates the safety of U.S. products and facilitates port of entry procedures for 

U.S. exports.

Additionally, USDA provided food safety training to 10 Cochran Fellows from Algeria, Costa 

Rica, Ghana, Moldova, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and Ukraine at Michigan State University in East 

Lansing, Michigan. The training program focused on emerging food safety issues and concepts, 

U.S. and international food safety regulatory systems, food safety policy development, risk 

analysis, and food safety program implementation. By addressing food safety issues that present 

unjustified barriers to trade and that are increasingly tied to global trade agreements, this USDA 

program promoted U.S. exports to these countries and helped build an international food safety 

resource network.

Africa

USDA in cooperation with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) continues 

to support three resident SPS advisors and coordinators stationed in Sub-Saharan Africa to cover 

the East, West, and Southern Africa regions. These SPS advisors and coordinators directly 

supported government SPS agencies in their respective regions to develop institutional capacity 

for establishing and maintaining science-based regulatory systems consistent with international 

standards.

An example of this support occurred when USDA collaborated with the OIE to provide technical 

information regarding the regulation of veterinary biologics in the United States to an assembled 

group of African government veterinary officials. This seminar occurred in Kenya and provided 

participants with information on the OIE activities linked to veterinary products, the 

responsibilities of OIE delegates and their national veterinary officials, the rights and obligations 

of OIE Members in trade, and on several other issues relevant for the production and use of 

veterinary products.

In May 2013, in support of the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future Initiative, inter-disciplinary 

teams composed of technical experts from USDA, FDA and USAID, and specializing in food 

safety, animal and plant health, agricultural economics, and capacity building, reviewed SPS 

systems in East and West Africa offering recommendations to increase overall food security, 

including recommendations to improve the safety of domestic food supplies and opportunities 

for agricultural trade.

On July 1, 2013, President Obama launched Trade Africa, which seeks to increase U.S.-Africa 

trade and investment and support regional economic integration within Africa. Trade Africa’s 

initial focus is on the member states of the East African Community (EAC), which includes 

Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. Building on the existing U.S.-EAC Trade and 

Investment Partnership, Trade Africa contains a number of complementary, but distinct 

components, in part to build SPS capacity in the EAC. 
95

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

Food Safety Cooperation Forum and Partnership Training Institute Network

Trade in food and agricultural products in the Asia Pacific is vital to U.S. interests, yet concerns 

about food safety in the region spiked in recent years following a series of high-profile food 

safety incidents. These prompted APEC economies to agree to strengthen food safety standards 

and practices in the region and encourage adherence to international science-based standards to 

facilitate trade in the region and enhance food safety. The SCSC established the Food Safety 

Cooperation Forum (FSCF) in 2007 with the goal of improving food safety regulatory systems in 

APEC economies in line with WTO Members’ rights and obligations under both the SPS and 

TBT Agreements. In 2008, APEC economies called for increased capacity building to improve 

technical competence and understanding of food safety management among stakeholders in the 

food supply chain through the public-private partnership initiative, the Partnership Training 

Institute Network (PTIN). Since 2007, over $6 million of public and private sector funds have 

been contributed for FSCF and PTIN activities. The FSCF and PTIN have identified priority 

capacity building needs and delivered over 30 programs in key areas (supply chain management, 

food safety incident management, laboratory competency, risk analysis, food safety regulatory 

systems) since their inception.

2013 marked the first year of implementation of an APEC multiyear project: Building 

Convergence in Food Safety Standards and Regulatory Systems for 2013-2015. In April 2013 

the project kicked off with a workshop led by Indonesia on best practices for small and medium 

sized enterprises, the development of an incident management network for the region, and 

meetings of the FSCF and PTIN Steering Groups. The FSCF agreed to endorse new work on 

FSCF Regulatory Cooperation Roadmaps on Export Certificates and MRLs at this meeting. 

Also in 2013, the PTIN conducted two laboratory capacity building needs assessment pilot 

projects with Chile and China. For Chile, this project included training on the detection of 

salmonella in seafood and the detection of veterinary drug residues. In addition to the two pilot 

projects, USDA, in partnership with JIFSAN, sponsored a regional workshop on laboratory 

capacity building priority setting for APEC member economies in College Park, Maryland in 

December 2013.

The PTIN also continued to work closely with the World Bank through the newly established 

Global Food Safety Partnership (GFSP) which includes an initial three year plan of close 

collaboration in food safety capacity building. The GFSP rolled out APEC PTIN modules on 

supply chain management in China, Vietnam, and Malaysia in May/June 2013 and an APEC 

PTIN module on aquaculture was delivered by the GFSP in Indonesia in June 2013.

Food safety efforts are an integral part of overall food security. In 2014, collaboration between 

APEC food security activities, taking place in the Public-Private Partnership on Food Security, 

and food safety efforts under way in the FSCF and PTIN, will be strengthened with a planned 

joint summit proposed for September 2014 in Beijing to identify joint goals for moving towards 

a safe and secure food region in APEC by 2020.
96

China

For the past six years, USDA and EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs have worked together to 

provide technical assistance to China’s Institute for the Control of Agri-Chemicals, Ministry of 

Agriculture (ICAMA). These technical exchanges have resulted in the initiation of work sharing 

by ICAMA and EPA of six pesticides that are approved for use in China and the United States, 

but that are scheduled for re-evaluation. As a result of this collaboration, ICAMA and EPA 

signed a Letter of Intent to cooperate on Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs) for the conduct of 

pesticide studies to support registration of products. This multi-year cooperation between the 

United States and China benefits both countries by creating stability for exporters of agricultural 

commodities and pesticide chemicals, increasing confidence in the quality of science and 

decision-making for regulatory decisions, and enhancing the protection of public health and the 

environment of both countries.

Global Food Safety Partnership

In 2013, the United States pledged additional technical support for the GFSP. The GFSP 

evolved from a cooperation initiative between The World Bank Group and the FSCF into a 

global partnership. The GFSP is an innovative public-private partnership, dedicated to 

improving food safety through capacity building in low and medium income countries to 

improve public health, facilitate trade, accelerate economic growth, and alleviate rural poverty. 

The GFSP has received a total of $2.6 million in donations from the United States, the 

Netherlands, Denmark, and Canada and aims to raise an additional $45-50 million to further 

carry out its work. The GFSP will help enhance U.S. efforts to increase the trade in safe food by

supporting food safety systems assessments and coordinating technical training and the sharing 

best practices. These efforts, in turn, will facilitate the implementation of international standards 

and the use science and risk-based approaches to food safety regulation. These programs will 

also help growers, producers, and food safety officials to understand and use preventive controls, 

resulting in safer food for consumers and fewer safety incidents in food trade.

Latin America and the Caribbean

Since 2005, the United States has assisted the Dominican Republic-Central America-United 

States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) countries in developing their institutional capacities 

to implement science-based regulatory systems consistent with international standards. The 

CAFTA-DR Trade Capacity Building Program includes SPS-related activities. Under this 

program, USDA helps CAFTA-DR countries develop their institutional capacities to implement 

science-based regulatory systems consistent with international standards. Such systems create a 

more transparent, predictable, and favorable trade environment for U.S. exports. USDA bases its 

SPS assistance to CAFTA-DR countries on the national and regional needs identified during the 

CAFTA-DR negotiations and through the ongoing work of the CAFTA-DR Trade Capacity 

Building Committee. 

In FY 2013, USDA focused its efforts on increasing the capacity of other CAFTA-DR Parties to 

harmonize SPS standards regionally, establishing MRLs for pesticides, and meeting anticipated 

requirements for export to the United States. USDA conducted regional SPS workshops and 

pesticide laboratory training, that helped lead to the establishment of an expert working group to 
97

address issues related to MRLs for specialty crops, and adopting common microbiological 

residue standards among Central American Customs Union countries. In addition, USDA’s 

work at the local level on plant pest diagnostic and management helped the region adhere to U.S. 

import requirements. This harmonization and training support improves trade flows within the 

region, and an increasingly integrated Central American market will assist in growing U.S. 

exports through reduced trade barriers.

USDA’s Cochran Fellowship Program sponsored 13 Fellows from Argentina, Costa Rica, 

Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and Paraguay to 

attend FSIS Meat and Poultry Inspection training in Puerto Rico. The Fellows learned about 

U.S. inspection procedures and regulations used to ensure meat, poultry, and egg products are 

safe, wholesome, and properly labeled. The training helped create an understanding of U.S. 

regulations in foreign inspection offices with the goal of facilitating U.S. exports to the region.

Russia and Eastern Europe

In 2013, USDA collaborated with the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of 

Defense to provide animal health technical assistance to Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and 

Ukraine. This technical assistance focused on the diagnosis, detection, and response to highly 

infectious animal diseases to help these partner countries control diseases of economic 

importance. The technical assistance also allows the United States to address foreign animal 

diseases, such as African swine fever, which could be very damaging to U.S. livestock herds if 

ever introduced in the United States. In addition, the training builds trust and credibility with 

foreign partners regarding the U.S. animal health system.
98
99

APPENDIX

USTR received public comments regarding this report from the following entities: 

Almond Board of California

American Potato Trade Alliance American Seed Trade Association

California Avocado Commission California Cherry Board

California Table Grape Commission

Distilled Spirits Council of the United States Grocery Manufacturers Association 

National Grain and Feed Association

National Potato Council 

Northwest Horticultural Council

U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee

U.S. Meat Export Federation

U.S. Wheat Associates 
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508