2011 Report on 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

Measures 

Ambassador Ronald Kirk

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.  U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk gratefully acknowledges in 

particular the contributions of Deputy U.S. Trade Representatives Demetrios Marantis, 

Michael Punke, and Miriam Sapiro; USTR General Counsel Timothy Reif; Chief Agricultural 

Negotiator Isi A. Siddiqui; Chief of Staff Lisa Garcia; Assistant USTR for Public/Media Affairs 

Carol Guthrie, Senior Policy Advisor Janis Lazda, Special Assistant Stephen Ostrowski, 

Director of Speechwriting Jeremy Sturchio, and all USTR staff who contributed to the 

drafting and review of this report.  Thanks are extended to partner Executive Branch 

agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug 

Administration, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and State.  Ambassador 

Kirk would also like to thank Elizabeth Teague for her contributions. 

In preparing the report, substantial information was solicited from U.S. embassies around 

the world and from interested stakeholders.  The draft of this report was circulated 

through the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee.   

March 2011

LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

  

AI          Avian Influenza 

APEC        Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation 

APHIS        USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

BSE        Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy 

CACM        Central American Common Market 

CAFTA‐DR    Dominican Republic‐Central America‐United States Free

Trade Agreement 

CAN    Andean Community 

Codex        Codex Alimentarius Commission 

EPA        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EU        European Union 

FAO        United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 

FAS        USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service 

FDA        U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

FSIS        USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service 

FTA        Free Trade Agreement 

HACCP        Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points 

HPAI        Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza 

IPPC        International Plant Protection Convention 

LPAI        Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza 

MOU        Memorandum of Understanding 

MRL        Maximum Residue Limit 

NAFTA        North American Free Trade Agreement 

NTE        National Trade Estimate 

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 

SPS        Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

SRM        Specified Risk Material 

TBT        Technical Barriers to Trade 

TIFA        Trade and Investment Framework Agreement 

TPSC        Trade Policy Staff Committee 

TWG        Trade Working Group 

USDA          U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USTR          Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 

WHO          World Health Organization 

WTO          World Trade Organization

FOREWORD

This year the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) publishes its second 

annual Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Report).  This report was 

created to respond to the concerns of U.S. farmers, ranchers, producers, and workers who 

are running into SPS trade barriers as they seek to export high‐quality American 

agricultural products around the world.  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 pests and diseases.   

Many SPS measures are fully justified, but too often governments cloak discriminatory and 

protectionist trade measures in the guise of ensuring human, animal, or plant safety.  These 

SPS barriers not only harm U.S. farmers, ranchers, producers, workers, and their families, 

they also deprive consumers around the world of access to high‐quality American 

agricultural goods.  USTR is committed to identifying and combating unjustifiable SPS 

barriers to U.S. agricultural exports, many of which are detailed in this report.   USTR’s 

efforts to remove foreign SPS barriers serve the President’s goal of doubling U.S. exports by 

the end of 2014 through the National Export Initiative.  

As discussed in this report, the United States achieved some important successes since the 

publication of last year’s report in dismantling SPS barriers that blocked U.S. agricultural 

exports.  For example, U.S. negotiators removed SPS barriers in Chile and Egypt for U.S. 

beef and beef products as well as barriers in Colombia, Ecuador, and Russia to U.S. exports 

of poultry and poultry products.  The United States also persuaded China to lift its 

unnecessary swine flu‐related import restrictions that kept U.S. producers from selling live 

swine to China.   

In 2011, USTR will continue to work with colleagues from across the U.S. Government, as 

well as interested stakeholders, to encourage governments around the world to remove 

their unwarranted SPS rules.  As always, we will engage in all available bilateral, regional, 

and multilateral fora in our efforts to dismantle these barriers to U.S. agricultural exports 

and strengthen the rules‐based trading system to ensure a level playing field abroad for 

U.S. ranch and farm products.  We look forward to making further progress on behalf of 

America’s farmers, ranchers, producers, and workers, as well as families who depend on 

export‐supported American jobs.   

   

Ambassador Ron Kirk

U.S. Trade Representative

March 2011

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 ........................................................................................................................ 10 

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.  Avian Influenza .............................................................................................................................................. 19 

B.   Biotechnology ............................................................................................................................................... 20 

C.   Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ................................................................................................... 21 

D.   Maximum Residue Limits ........................................................................................................................ 23 

E.    Ractopamine .................................................................................................................................................. 24 

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

ARGENTINA ............................................................................................................................................................. 28 
ii 

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

BOLIVIA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 31 

BRAZIL ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32 

CHILE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 33 

CHINA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 34 

COLOMBIA ................................................................................................................................................................ 39 

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

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC....................................................................................................................................... 41 

ECUADOR .................................................................................................................................................................. 42 

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

EL SALVADOR ......................................................................................................................................................... 44 

ETHIOPIA .................................................................................................................................................................. 44 

EUROPEAN UNION ............................................................................................................................................... 45 

GUATEMALA ............................................................................................................................................................ 53 

GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL ....................................................................................................................... 53 

HONDURAS............................................................................................................................................................... 54 

HONG KONG ............................................................................................................................................................. 54 

INDIA .......................................................................................................................................................................... 55 

INDONESIA ............................................................................................................................................................... 56 

ISRAEL ........................................................................................................................................................................ 57 

JAMAICA .................................................................................................................................................................... 58 

JAPAN .......................................................................................................................................................................... 59 

KAZAKHSTAN ......................................................................................................................................................... 63 
iii 

KUWAIT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 65 

MEXICO ...................................................................................................................................................................... 65 

MOROCCO ................................................................................................................................................................. 67 

NEW ZEALAND ....................................................................................................................................................... 68 

NICARAGUA ............................................................................................................................................................. 68 

NORWAY ................................................................................................................................................................... 69 

PERU ........................................................................................................................................................................... 69 

PHILIPPINES ............................................................................................................................................................ 70 

RUSSIA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 71 

SAUDI ARABIA ........................................................................................................................................................ 74 

SINGAPORE .............................................................................................................................................................. 74 

SOUTH AFRICA ....................................................................................................................................................... 75 

SOUTH AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY ..................................................................................... 75 

SOUTH KOREA ........................................................................................................................................................ 76 

SRI LANKA ................................................................................................................................................................ 78 

SWITZERLAND ....................................................................................................................................................... 79 

TAIWAN (CHINESE TAIPEI) ............................................................................................................................. 79 

THAILAND ................................................................................................................................................................ 82 

TURKEY...................................................................................................................................................................... 82 

UKRAINE ................................................................................................................................................................... 84 

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ................................................................................................................................. 84 

URUGUAY .................................................................................................................................................................. 85 

VENEZUELA ............................................................................................................................................................. 85 
iv 

VIETNAM ................................................................................................................................................................... 86 

V.  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE .......................................................................................................................... 89 

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

I.
1

I.   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The  2011 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Report)  is  a  specialized 

report  dedicated  to  describing  significant  barriers  to  U.S.  food  and  farm  exports  arising 

from measures  that  foreign governments apply  on  the ground  that  they are necessary  to 

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

pests,  from  plant‐  or  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) parlance 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  to  protect  their  people,  animals,  and 

plants from health risks of this kind.  This report is focused 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 (SMEs) 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 measures.  

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

international  agreements  governing  these  measures,  and  discusses  the  U.S.  and 

international  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;  (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  SPS  issues  that  affect  U.S.  exports  in  multiple  foreign 

markets.  Among the most significant of these cross‐cutting barriers are restrictions related 

to avian influenza (AI), biotechnology, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), maximum 

residue limits (MRLs) on pesticides, and ractopamine.  

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, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, 

Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, the European Union, Guatemala, the Gulf Cooperation Council, 

Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Mexico, 

Morocco,  New  Zealand,  Nicaragua,  Norway,  Peru,  Philippines,  Russia,  Saudi  Arabia, 

Singapore,  South  Africa,  the  South  African  Development  Community,  South  Korea,  Sri 
2 

Lanka,  Switzerland,  Taiwan  (Chinese  Taipei),  Thailand,  Turkey,  Ukraine,  United  Arab 

Emirates, 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 to U.S. efforts to ensure 

that countries adopt and maintain science‐based SPS measures.  
3

I. 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 World Trade Organization’s 

(WTO)  system  of  multilateral  trading  rules.    The  President’s  2009  Trade  Policy  Agenda 

vowed 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.   

In a major policy speech delivered at the Edgar Thomson Plant of the Mon Valley Works in 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in July 2009, the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk, 

pledged more aggressive action to break down barriers to U.S. exports.  Ambassador Kirk 

highlighted  two  kinds  of  non‐tariff  measures  that  pose  increasing  challenges  to  U.S. 

producers and businesses seeking to export products abroad:  sanitary and phytosanitary 

(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  pests,  from  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.   

In  his  speech,  Ambassador  Kirk  pledged  stepped  up  monitoring  of  trading  partners’  SPS 

and standards‐related practices that act as obstacles to U.S. trade.  He also vowed 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  two  WTO 

agreements:    the Agreement  on  the  Application  of  Sanitary  and  Phytosanitary  Measures 

(SPS Agreement) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement).  The 

goal of this intensified monitoring and engagement is to help to facilitate and expand trade 

in safe, high quality U.S. products. 

Ambassador  Kirk  also  relayed  his  determination  to  make  USTR’s  annual  reports  to 

Congress “more than paperwork.”  To this end, he directed that the annual reports be used 

to bring new energy to the process of identifying non‐tariff 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  non‐tariff  barriers;  and  to  document 

ongoing  efforts  to  give  greater  transparency  and  confidence  to  American  workers, 

producers,  businesses,  consumers  and  other  stakeholders with  regard  to  the actions  this 

Administration is taking on their behalf.   

The  SPS Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  (SPS Report)  serves  these  goals.  

This specialized report was first published in 2010.  It is dedicated to describing significant 

and unwarranted SPS foreign barriers.  Many of these measures were previously addressed 
4 

in  the  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 2011

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  (2011 Report on Technical Barriers to

Trade, or TBT Report) is being released in parallel with this report. 

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 

foreign SPS  trade barriers.  Next,  the SPS Report discusses certain SPS  trade barriers  that 

U.S. producers face in a number of different markets.  The following 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  Federal Register  notice,  reports  from  U.S. 

embassies abroad 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

SPS measures are measures that governments apply to protect human, animal, or plant life 

or health from risks arising from the entry or spread of pests, from 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 farm products or animals that may introduce a plant pest or animal disease into 

the country.  As an illustration, many countries have established maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) for pesticide residues in food to promote food safety, as well as requirements that 

imported  vegetables  be  treated  to  eliminate  a  particular  pest  to  protect  plant  health.    In 

                                                           

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 

addition,  governments  often  require  live  animals  to  be  subject  to  veterinary  health 

examinations, disease testing, and possibly pre‐ or post‐entry quarantine.    

  

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

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

create  substantial  barriers  to  U.S.  exports.    For  example,  many  countries  have  used  the 

threat of avian influenza (AI) or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (otherwise known as 

BSE or “mad cow disease”) as a reason to block U.S. poultry and beef exports, 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  $108.7  billion  in  FY  2010.  

According  to Economic Research Service estimates, each $1 billion in agricultural exports 

supports  approximately  8,400 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 of 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 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 that, accordingly, do not serve 

to guard against legitimate heath risks but rather act to protect domestic or favored foreign 

producers.    

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 

countries  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 producers  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 WTO Members 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.”   

Science­Based 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 
7 

adopt  SPS  measures  on  the  basis  of  available  information.    In  such  circumstances,  WTO 

Members  shall  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 

trade‐restrictive  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 Members’ SPS measures on as wide a basis as possible.  The 

three recognized standard‐setting bodies in the SPS Agreement are:  (1) the Joint Food and 

Agricultural Organization of  the United Nations (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) 

Codex  Alimentarius  Commission  (Codex)  for  food  safety;  (2)  the FAO  International  Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC) for plant health; and (3) the World Organization  for Animal 

Health,  formerly  known  as  the  International  Office  of  Epizootics  (OIE),  for  animal  health 

and  zoonoses.    A  Member  may  depart  from  an  international  standard,  guideline,  or 

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

Agreement.   

Transparency

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

in a manner that enables other interested WTO Members to become acquainted with them.  

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 
8 

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

recommendation and that may have a significant effect on trade in order to provide other 

Members 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 162 SPS notifications per year.  

SPS Committee  

The SPS Agreement establishes 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.  The U.S. delegation to the SPS Committee is led by USTR, 

and  includes  representatives  from  the  U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture  (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.  Among  the 

observers have been representatives from Codex, the OIE, the IPPC, and the WHO.   

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

Committee members routinely discuss matters related to how the SPS Agreement is being 

applied  and  implemented  and  specific  trade  concerns,  such  as  pesticide  residue  level 

restrictions.    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.     

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) and the Inter‐American Institute for 

Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA).  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. 
9 

D. Other SPS­Related 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 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  country's  right  to  protect 

consumers  from  unsafe  products,  or  to  protect  domestic  crops  and  livestock  from  the 

introduction of imported pests and diseases. 

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  country's  right  to  determine  its  appropriate  level  of  protection.    Such  flexibility 

permits  each  country  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  governments  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.   

Other U.S. Free Trade Agreements  

Most  FTAs  that  the United States has concluded  since  the WTO was inaugurated 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 

                                                           

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

Bahrain FTA, the U.S. – Chile FTA, the Dominican Republic – Central America – United States FTA (CAFTA – 

DR), the U.S. – Oman FTA, and the U.S. – Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA).  The U.S. – Morocco FTA 

does not have a stand‐alone SPS chapter, but does include various SPS provisions in its agriculture chapter.  
10 

forum  for  the parties’  trade and regulatory authorities  to  resolve 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  

The WTO officially recognizes three standard setting bodies to deal with SPS matters:  the 

Codex Commission 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 countries 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  avian  influenza  (LPAI)  may  be  traded  with 

minimal  restrictions,  and  countries  reporting  highly  pathogenic  avian  influenza  (HPAI) 

may  trade  safely  in  poultry  and  poultry  products  under  specified  conditions.    The 

guidelines do not, however, recommend any  type of import bans on poultry commodities 

from countries with non‐notifiable subtypes of AI.   

F. U.S. Government Agencies  

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

resolving foreign SPS trade barriers.  The following discussion describes the roles that the 

relevant federal agencies play in that effort. 

Office of the United States Trade Representative  

USTR, a component of  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.  
11 

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 

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

Inspection Service (APHIS), and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), are actively 

engaged 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  address  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.  farm  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  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 SPS interagency teams. 

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 are protected from 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.  
12 

APHIS also serves as a member of the U.S. delegation to the WTO SPS Committee and is an 

active member of all other SPS interagency teams. 

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 SPS interagency teams. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  

EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) regulates pesticides 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  foreign  SPS  measures,  particularly  pesticide 

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

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

U.S. Food and Drug Administration  

The  FDA  is  the  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  also  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 

China, India, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Italy, Mexico, Costa Rica and Chile.   FDA takes 

an active  role in assessing  foreign SPS measures and  practices as part  of  the interagency 

process and is a member of the U.S. delegation for the WTO SPS Committee.  FDA is also an 

active member of other SPS interagency teams. 

U.S. Department of Commerce

The Monitoring and Compliance (MAC) unit at the U.S. Department of Commerce leads the 

Trade Agreements Compliance (TAC) Program, which supports the enforcement side of the 

National  Export  Initiative  (NEI).    Under  the  TAC  Program,  MAC  coordinates  U.S. 

Government efforts and  resources  to  systematically monitor, investigate, and ensure  that 

foreign  governments  comply  with the  over  270 international  trade  agreements  to  which 

the United States is party.  The TAC Program represents the U.S. Government’s focal point 

for  reducing  or  eliminating  the  foreign  trade  barriers  that  obstruct  U.S.  exporter  market 
13 

access.    Commerce  works  closely  with  its  interagency  colleagues  to  address  SPS‐related 

trade  barriers,  as  well  as  all  matters  pending  before  the  SPS  Committee.    In  addition,  to 

advance the NEI’s advocacy efforts, the Department’s U.S. Commercial Service works with 

U.S. companies to help them expand market access opportunities abroad.  The Commercial 

Service  operates in more  than  100  U.S.  cities  and  nearly  80  countries  around  the  world.  

The  Department  of  Commerce  is  a  member  of  the  U.S.  delegation  to  the  WTO  SPS 

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

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‐

the‐ground context for foreign government actions on SPS measures.  Department of State 

officers advocate for fair consideration of U.S. products which may be targets of unjustified 

barriers  to  trade.    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 

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

U.S.  businesses  and  industries,  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. 

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

WTO  Members  are  considering  making  changes  in  their  SPS  measures.    FAS  leads  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 Members on the potential trade 

effects or scientific concerns that may arise from the changes they are considering.  In 2010 

alone,  the  interagency  group  reviewed  1,044  notifications  by  50  WTO  Members  and 

provided comments to these trading partners on 173 proposed or in force SPS measures.        

Nearly one‐half of the comments were measures regarding processed products; one‐third 

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

including dairy products); and almost one‐quarter of the comments were for measures that 

introduced new standards or entry  requirements  for plants, bulk commodities  (including 

those made with biotechnology), and horticultural products.  The leading recipients of U.S. 

Government  comments included  China with  19  comments, South Korea  (17), Brazil  (12), 

Taiwan (11), and Thailand (11).
14 

As  part  of  these  submissions,  the  United  States  requested  its  trading  partners  to  take  a 

number  of  actions,  including  the  following:    change  or  reduce  product  certification 

requirements;  modify  requirements  of  a  measure;  repeal  an  import  ban;  rescind  entry 

requirements;  delay  implementation  of  a  measure;  and  reduce  testing  fees.    The  United 

States also requested its trading partners to adopt the international standards of Codex, the 

OIE, and the IPPC 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  those  federal  agencies  that  participate  in 

addressing SPS  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  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 
15 

Committee meeting in Geneva.   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.  In addition, USTR may opt to add the issue to the agenda of a 

meeting convened under the appropriate bilateral or regional U.S. FTA 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.    

WTO Dispute Settlement

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

USTR may conclude that a negotiated settlement is not possible on a bilateral basis.  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  foreign  SPS 

measures in four separate proceedings, with a fifth proceeding currently underway.  These 

proceedings are described below. 

European Communities – Hormones3

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.   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 products.   

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  high‐quality  beef  produced  from U.S.  cattle  that  have  not  received  growth‐promoting 

hormones.  The MOU, which  took effect in August 2009, is currently providing additional 

duty‐free access to the EU market for high‐quality beef produced from cattle that have not 

been raised with growth‐promoting hormones – 20,000 tons in each of the first three years, 

with  the  possibility  of increasing  to  45,000  tons  beginning in the  fourth  year.   Under  the 

MOU, the United States may maintain the additional duties it had in place on EU products in 

March 2009 and will not impose new duties on EU products during  the initial  three‐year 

period,  and  may  eliminate  all  sanctions  during  the  fourth  year.   In  February  2011,  the 

United States and EU held consultations under the MOU to discuss the possibility of moving 

into  the  next  phase,  which  would  provide  up  to  45,000  tons  of  duty‐free  access  for  U.S. 

                                                           

3 Before 2010 the European Union was referred to for purposes of the WTO as the European Communities.     
16 

high‐quality beef.  Before the four‐year period ends, the United States and the EU will seek 

to conclude a longer‐term agreement. 

Japan – 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 – 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 ruled 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.    A  WTO  compliance  panel 

found in 2005 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 ensure 

access for U.S. apples to Japan’s market.

European Communities – Biotech

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

biotechnology  agricultural  products,  such  as  certain  corn  and  soybeans  varieties,  and 

marketing  prohibitions  that individual  EU Member  States  had imposed  on  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.   A large  backlog  of applications  remains  pending in  the  EU approval  system, 

which  has  the  effect  of  blocking  U.S.  exports  of  certain  agricultural  products.    The  EU 

approved several products early last year, but  there have been no approvals issued since 

July 2010.   The United States continues to press the EU for fundamental improvements in 

its regulatory system with the goal of normalizing biotech trade. 

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.   
17 

Technical Assistance

In addition to these efforts, the U.S. Government has put in 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.    In  2010,  the  U.S.  Government  obligated  to  provide  SPS  trade 

capacity building in excess of $10.4 million.  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. 

19

II. III.   MAJOR CROSS­CUTTING SPS ISSUES

This  section  of  the  report  discusses  certain  important  SPS  issues  that  restrict  U.S. 

agricultural exports in multiple markets and describes the efforts the U.S. Government has 

made to address these issues.  These cross‐cutting issues are as follows:  AI, biotechnology, 

BSE,  MRLs  for  pesticides,  and  ractopamine.    Individual  country  reports  in  section  IV 

provide further details on barriers imposed by countries regarding these issues. 

A. Avian Influenza  

AI is a poultry disease that can infect chickens, turkeys, pheasants, quail, ducks, geese, and 

guinea  fowl, as well as a wide variety of other birds. AI virus strains are divided into  two 

groups  based  on  their  ability  to  produce  disease  and  on  the  severity  of  the  illness  they 

cause: low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) and highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI).  

LPAI  naturally  occurs  in  wild  birds  and  can  spread  to  domestic  birds.    In  most  cases  it 

causes no signs of infection or only minor symptoms in birds.  These strains of the AI virus 

pose a negligible threat to human health.  Certain subtypes of LPAI are notifiable to the OIE 

due to the propensity of these subtypes to mutate into HPAI.  Since mutation requires live 

cells,  there  is  no  risk  of  mutation  in  poultry  products.    LPAI  also  is  not  present  in  the 

muscles (meat) or eggs of birds, and therefore these products do not present an AI‐related 

risk.

HPAI  is  an  extremely  infectious  and  fatal  form  of  the  disease  that,  once  established,  can 

spread rapidly  from  flock to  flock.  HPAI is often  fatal in chickens and turkeys.  It spreads 

more rapidly than LPAI and has a higher death rate in birds.  HPAI H5N1 is the type of HPAI 

that  has  spread  rapidly  in  some  regions  of  the  world  in  recent  years.    Because  of  the 

potential health effects of HPAI H5N1, the OIE requires governments to report outbreaks of 

the disease as soon as possible.   

U.S. AI­Related Controls

While there have been two minor outbreaks of HPAI in U.S. poultry since the Second World 

War,    there  is  no  evidence  that  HPAI  currently  exists  in  the  United  States.    Further,  the 

United States has taken numerous actions to prevent the spread of AI consistent with  the 

science‐based  standards,  guidelines,  and  recommendations  issued  by  the  OIE,  the 

international authority on AI issues.   

U.S.  regulatory authorities have put in place numerous  safeguards  to ensure  that HPAI is 

not established in the U.S. poultry population.  For example, federal agencies have worked 

with  states  and  the  poultry  industry  to  monitor  U.S.  bird  populations.    These  programs 

monitor  four  key  areas:  live  bird  markets,  commercial  flocks,  backyard  flocks,  and 

migratory  bird  populations.    Extensive  testing  is  carried  out  in  live  bird  markets  and 

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

these birds are found to be infected with AI, the USDA works to identify the subtype of AI.  

Finally, federal officials and their state and industry partners have also worked to establish 
20 

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

any outbreak of HPAI in the United States.  

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

Despite  these  measures,  many  countries  have  imposed  AI‐related  import  bans  on  U.S. 

poultry.  China, for example, currently has bans on poultry and poultry products from four 

U.S.  states.    Although  China  recently  lifted  bans  on  two  U.S.  states,  the  remaining  bans, 

already  in  effect  from  one  to  four  years,  are  not  consistent  with  OIE  guidelines.    India 

prohibits imports of U.S. poultry and poultry products, as well as pork products, based on 

AI‐related  concerns.   Other  countries, including  Japan,  have also  banned U.S.  poultry and 

poultry products citing concerns over AI.   

The United States is concerned with these restrictions and the impact that they have had on 

U.S. poultry exports.  Many of the import bans appear to be inconsistent with science and 

the relevant OIE guidelines.  Those guidelines recognize that unprocessed poultry products 

from countries that report detections of LPAI may be traded with minimal restrictions, and 

countries reporting HPAI may trade safely in poultry and poultry products under specified 

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

poultry commodities from countries with non‐notifiable subtypes of AI.  

Accordingly, the United States has raised concerns over the various AI‐related imports bans 

around  world  in  numerous  bilateral  and  multilateral  fora  with  the  pertinent  trading 

partners.  The United States has succeeded in having 57 AI‐related bans lifted since 2008.  

It remains a high priority for the United States to remove the remaining AI‐related import 

bans  on  U.S.  poultry  and  poultry  products  that  China,  India,  and  other  countries  have 

imposed.   

B.    Biotechnology

In  recent  years,  farmers  around  the  world  have  increasingly  planted  crops  developed 

through biotechnology.  Agricultural biotechnology encompasses a range of tools, including 

traditional breeding techniques that alter living organisms, or parts of organisms, to make 

new  products  or  modify  existing  ones;  improve  plants  or  animals;  or  develop  micro‐

organisms  for  specific  agricultural  uses.    Modern  biotechnology  includes  the  tools  of 

genetic engineering (GE).  

According  to  the  International  Service  for  the  Acquisition  of  Agri‐Biotech  Applications 

(ISAAA)  the  number  of  countries  growing  biotechnology  crops  has  grown  considerably, 

from six in 1996 to 29 countries in 2010.  Crops produced using agricultural biotechnology 

that  are  consumed  in  the  United  States  for  food,  fiber,  or  feed  include  corn,  soybeans, 

cotton, canola, alfalfa, and squash.  USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service estimates 

that in 2010, of the farm acreage in the United States devoted to soybeans, corn, and cotton, 

93 percent, 86 percent, and 93 percent, respectively, were planted with biotech varieties.  

New  GE  crops  and  products,  such  as  those  intended  for  pharmaceuticals,  phyto‐
21 

remediation,  and  biofuel  production,  are  likely  to  appear  in  the  market  in  the  next  few 

years,  and  create  acceptance  and  trade  challenges  for  the  United  States  and  its  trading 

partners.  

U.S.  exports  of  biotech  corn  and  soybeans,  as  well  as  other  agricultural  products  that 

contain – or may contain – biotech‐derived ingredients, face a multitude of trade barriers.  

Some U.S. trading partners have continued to impose import bans on these products even 

though repeated science‐based dietary risk assessments continue to show that these foods 

are  as  safe  as  non‐biotech  varieties.    These  unwarranted  import  bans  and  other  trade 

restrictions on U.S. biotech products are enumerated in the country‐specific sections of this 

report.    In  addition,  some  trading  partners  impose  mandatory  labeling  requirements  on 

foods  derived  from  biotech  products.    Those  requirements  serve  as  a  trade  barrier  by 

wrongly implying that these  foods are unsafe.  The labeling restrictions are treated in the 

TBT Report. 

The United States is actively engaged with  the  relevant  trading partners  to  remove  these 

unwarranted trade barriers, and, more broadly, with a wide spectrum of trading partners 

in efforts to share experiences related to biotechnology development, regulation, and trade.  

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

standards  related  to  safety  assessment  of,  and  trade  in,  agricultural  biotechnology 

products.    Specifically,  the United  States  contributed  to  the  establishment  of  Codex  plant 

guidelines  for  assessing  the  food  safety  of  biotech  crops.    The  United  States  has  also 

supported  the  development  of  Codex  food  safety  assessment  guidelines  for  nutritionally 

enhanced biotech crops and for cases of low‐level presence of unapproved biotech events.  

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

guides the transboundary movement of living modified organisms, the U.S. Government has 

consistently participated in meetings of the protocol parties and related capacity‐building 

efforts.  The United States is also actively involved in regulatory and policy dialogues in the 

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) addressing agricultural biotechnology.   

C.    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy   

History

BSE,  commonly  known  as  mad‐cow  disease,  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.  By 2010, the number of cases had decreased to 37 cases globally, only 1 of which was 

outside of Europe.  The United States has had only three animals test positive for BSE – an 

animal imported  from Canada in 2003, a U.S.‐born animal in 2005, and another U.S.‐born 

animal in 2006.   
22 

The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)

The  OIE  is  the  intergovernmental  organization  responsible  for  improving  animal  health 

worldwide.  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  beef  and  beef  products  from  countries  in  each 

category.  In May 2007, based on a review of the interlocking BSE‐related controls in place 

in the United States, the OIE classified the United States as having a “controlled risk” status. 

OIE  guidelines  specify  that  beef  and  beef  products  from  a  controlled  risk  country  can  be 

safely  traded  provided  that  certain  slaughter  and  processing  conditions  are  met,  and 

appropriate  “specified  risk  materials”  (SRMs)  are  removed  from  the  carcass  before 

shipment.  SRMs are tissues where the BSE agent is known to accumulate and can therefore 

pose a human health risk.     

From  a  human  health  perspective,  the  removal  of  these  tissues  from  cattle  over  the 

designated  age  is  the  single  most  significant measure  in  ensuring  the  production  of  safe 

beef and beef products.  With respect to BSE, all cattle parts that the OIE has not designated 

as SRMs are considered safe for human consumption.  

U.S. BSE­Related Controls

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

feeding most mammalian protein to ruminants.  The U.S. feed ban was further strengthened 

in 2009 by prohibiting the use of the highest risk cattle tissues in all animal feed.  Both of 

the indigenous BSE cases in U.S. cattle were in animals born before the 1997  feed ban.  A 

ban  of  this  type  is  the  most  important  step  a  country  can  take  to  protect  its  cattle 

population  from  BSE  via  feed.    In  2004,  the  United  States  implemented  BSE‐related 

measures in U.S. slaughterhouses and meat production establishments, the most important 

of which requires SRM removal.  As a result of these interlocking measures, beef and beef 

products produced in the United States are safe for consumption.   

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 

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 of beef and beef products.  

The following year, as a result of the widespread import ban, U.S. exports fell by 79 percent, 

to  $808  million.    By  2010,  U.S.  beef  and  beef  product  exports  had  rebounded,  totaling 

nearly $ 4.08 billion.  However, much of  the recovery was due to higher prices, and trade 

volumes are only at 84 percent of 2003 levels.  
23 

U.S. beef producers currently export their products to a wide variety of markets around the 

world.  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.  Such 

measures  represent unwarranted  foreign SPS  trade barriers and greatly  burden U.S.  beef 

producers.    Moreover,  the  discrepancy  in  BSE‐related  measures  in  different  markets 

represents a separate burden and undercuts the comparative advantage of U.S. exporters.  

USDA  currently  maintains  11  country‐specific  export  verification  programs  for  U.S.  beef 

exports,  plus  three  additional  programs  covering  beef  for  human  consumption,  and  one 

program for SRM‐free inedible material. 

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 non‐

ruminant commodities (e.g., rendered meals such as poultry or porcine meals and fishmeal; 

non‐ruminant  blood  products;  and  hydrolyzed  proteins),  based  on  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.    It  has  proven  difficult in  some 

instances  to initiate  and  conclude  these  negotiations  given  the  political  sensitivity  of  the 

issue in some countries.    

D.    Maximum Residue Limits  

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  on  food/animal 

feedstuff) 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 MRLs 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  the  tolerances  that EPA establishes.   Inspectors  from  the 

FDA  and  USDA  monitor  both  domestic  and  imported  food  and  feedstuffs  to  ensure  that 

MRLs are enforced.    Codex  develops and maintains international  standards  for MRLs.    In 

principle, governments should base their tolerances on Codex MRLs.  Nevertheless, it is not 

uncommon for countries – including the United States – to set their own, stricter standards.  

When a government sets an MRL that is more stringent than the relevant Codex standard, 

however, the SPS Agreement requires the MRL be based on scientific principles and a risk 

assessment.   
24 

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 

tolerance levels.  For example, the United States, Canada, and Mexico initiated a new level 

of trilateral regional regulatory cooperation on pesticides under the NAFTA framework by 

establishing  a  TWG.   Since  its  creation,  the  NAFTA  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  more  specifically  in  the  country  reports  that  follow,  a  variety  of  countries 

have either set pesticide MRLs at unreasonably low thresholds or have failed to establish a 

MRL for certain pesticides that are safe to use as evidenced by tolerances set by Codex or 

the United States.  This has created significant trade barriers for U.S. horticultural exports.  

For example, MRL enforcement policies in 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 approved pesticide MRL lists or 

systems  that  are  based  on  Codex  standards  are  best  suited  to  facilitate  trade.  

Unfortunately, positive list systems require a great deal of data, staff training, and financial 

resources.  It takes countries years 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 U.S. MRL in the interim, U.S. growers 

could  be subject  to onerous penalties and serious  trade barriers  for using pesticides  that 

EPA has approved.   

E.     Ractopamine

Ractopamine  is  a  veterinary  drug  used  to  promote  lean  meat  growth  in  pigs,  cattle,  and 

turkeys.  It is commonly used in the swine industry in the United States.  The FDA approved 

ractopamine  for  use  in  U.S.  pork  production  in  1999,  after  an  extensive  review  of  the 

scientific evidence related to its health implications.  The FDA approved the drug for use in 

cattle  in  2003  and  for  use  in  turkeys  in  2008.    Ractopamine  is  also  approved  for  use  in 

swine in 26 other countries and for use in beef in four countries.   

In  2004,  the  Joint  FAO/WHO  Expert  Committee  on  Food  Additives  (JECFA),  a  body  of 

experts  which  provides  scientific  advice  to  Codex  on  food  additives,  contaminants,  and 

residues of veterinary drugs, issued a report recommending the establishment of a MRL for 

ractopamine  in  the  edible  tissue  of  animals  treated  with  the  drug.    This  report  provides 

further  scientific evidence  that  this product is  safe. The Codex Committee  on Residues  of 

Veterinary Drugs in Food (CCRVDF) subsequently adopted the draft MRLs for ractopamine 

and forwarded them to the Codex Commission. The Codex Commission requested that the 

JECFA  evaluate  additional  residue  data  for  ractopamine  in  swine  provided  by  China  and 
25 

report any impact this might have on the recommended MRLs.  The JECFA provided a 2010 

report reaffirming  the previously recommended MRLs.  During its  July 2010 meeting,  the 

Codex Commission, in the final stages of an eight‐step process to establish food standards, 

did not adopt the MRL recommended by JECFA and the CCRVDF due to opposition from the 

EU and China.   

  

Despite  the  scientific  evidence  attesting  to  the  safety  of  ractopamine,  a  number  of 

important trading partners, including China, the EU, Taiwan, and Thailand, continue to ban 

imports  of  pork  and  pork  products  containing  ractopamine  residues.    Taiwan  also  has 

begun  to  inspect  for  traces  of  ractopamine  in  U.S.  beef  and  beef  products,  creating 

commercial uncertainty  for U.S. producers.  There measures create significant barriers  to 

U.S. exports of meat and meat products. 

27

IV. COUNTRY REPORTS  

This  section  sets  out  specific  SPS  concerns  in  individual  country  reports.    The  issues 

discussed  in  this  section  are  the  subject  of  U.S.  Government  engagement  at  home  and 

abroad with U.S. stakeholders concerning unwarranted SPS foreign trade barriers that U.S. 

exporters have encountered.  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.4

   

The  U.S.  Government’s  goal  is  to  work  as  vigorously  and  expeditiously  as  possible  to 

resolve  the  concern  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  does  not  believe  the  matter  raises  significant  concerns;  it  may 

simply reflect the fact that USTR requires additional time or information to consider it.  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  the  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  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  foreign  trade  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 

                                                           

4 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 as 

opposed to the TBT Agreement). 
28 

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 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  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 on the importation of bovine products related to 

BSE, but it failed to resolve many of the issues of concern to the United States.  The United 

States  continues  to  engage  with  the  relevant  Argentine  government  agencies  to  open  its 

market for imports of all live cattle, beef, and beef products from the United States based on 

science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Animal Health

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.    Argentina  recently 

promulgated new rules that will require the imposition of import restrictions on findings of 

AI or Newcastle’s disease in the exporting country, which may impact  future U.S. exports.  

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  say,  as 

Argentina has determined that the U.S. poultry inspection system is not “equivalent” to the 

Argentine  system.    The United States  has expressed  concerns  regarding  both Argentina’s 

equivalency  determination  and its  proposed  rule  on  AI  and Newcastle’s  disease  and  will 

continue to press this issue. 

See section III.A for an explanation of the AI trade issue. 
29 

Plant Health  

Apples and Pears

Argentina  currently  blocks  imports  of  U.S.  apples  and  pears  due  to  concerns  about  the 

transmission of Erwinia amylovora (the bacteria that cause 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 and 

will continue to work with Argentine officials to address the issue. 

AUSTRALIA  

Food Safety  

Beef and Beef Products

Australia currently prohibits the importation of bovine products  from countries that have 

reported one or more indigenous cases of BSE.  On March 1, 2010, Australia modified its 

food safety import policies to allow imports of beef and beef products from countries that 

have  been  affected  by  BSE.    Under  these  new  requirements,  a  country  interested  in 

exporting  beef  and  beef  products  to  Australia  must  apply  for  an  individual  country  risk 

assessment,  addressing  human  health  and  food  safety  issues  from  Food  Standards 

Australia New Zealand, a regional  food safety agency.  On March 18, 2010,  the Australian 

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry announced that Biosecurity Australia must 

conduct  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.  Australia has not yet concluded its risk assessment.  The United States 

continues to engage on the technical aspects of BSE and BSE‐related trade issues with the 

relevant  Australian  government  agencies  in  order  to  open  the  Australian  market  for 

imports  of  beef  and  beef  products  from  the  United  States  based  on  science,  the  OIE 

guidelines, and the United States’ controlled risk status.   

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Animal Health

Poultry

Australia bars imports of fresh, frozen, or cooked turkey from the United States.  In 2009, 

the  United  States  asked  Australia  to  prioritize  granting  market  access  for  U.S.  cooked 

turkey meat.   Despite this request, to date, Australia has not done so, and the United States 

continues  to  press  Australia  to  prioritize  this  request  and  begin  its  evaluation  of  U.S. 

cooked turkey meat.    
30 

The  United  States  also  considers  that  Australia’s  risk  assessment  for  U.S.  chicken  meat 

overestimates the risk presented by imports of this product in a number of ways, resulting 

in  mitigation  requirements  that  are  overly  restrictive.    For  example,  variant  strains  of 

infectious  bursal  disease  are  present  in  both  countries,  yet  Australia’s  assessment 

concluded  that  the U.S. strains are exotic  to Australia, citing a research study  that did not 

follow standard procedures to detect differences in immunogenicity (the effect of the virus 

on the bird).  Moreover, Australia’s cooking requirements for killing the AI virus are more 

stringent than those recommended by the OIE. 

Pork

In  2008,  citing  concerns  about  the  introduction  of  porcine  reproductive  and  respiratory 

syndrome  (PRRS)  and  post‐weaning multisystemic  wasting  syndrome  (PMWS),  Australia 

implemented new disposal requirements for imported pork.  Based on these requirements, 

all solid waste  from pork imports, regardless of whether the pork is cooked or uncooked, 

must  be  treated  as  a  quarantine  waste  product.    The  new  requirements  have  raised  the 

costs of handling imported pork, and have the potential to impact negatively U.S. pork trade 

with Australia.  

Plant Health

Stone fruit

Australia has banned imports of U.S. stone fruit (peaches, nectarines, plums, and apricots) 

due  to  concerns about  four  plant  pests  (the  peach  twig  borer, apple maggot,  cherry  fruit 

worm, and lesser apple worm).  Following a risk assessment and appeals, it was anticipated 

that  the  ban  would  be  lifted.    However,  in  2010,  Australia  expressed  concern  about  the 

presence of the spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii, or SWD) in the United States.  

As a result, the United States will not gain market access for U.S. stone fruit until a mutually 

acceptable  mitigation  for  SWD  for  stone  fruit  has  been  established.    The  two  countries 

continue an active dialogue on mitigation measures for SWD and are seeking to develop a 

preclearance  program.    This  issue  remains  a  top  priority  of  the  United  States  in  its  SPS 

engagement with Australia and is regularly addressed in bilateral discussions. 

Apples

Australia  currently  prohibits  the  importation  of  apples  from  the  United  States  and  New 

Zealand  based  on  concerns  about  fire  blight,  a  contagious,  bacterial  disease  affecting 

apples, pears, and other rosaceous plants.  For the past 15 years, the U.S. Government and 

the U.S. apple industry have been working closely with Australian officials to demonstrate 

that  U.S.  mature  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.  This 

PRA 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. 
31 

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.  

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.  The United States was an active  third 

party in the case and is monitoring this matter closely. 

Table grapes

The United States has been working with Australia  for over 20 years  to achieve access  to 

the Australian market  for California  table grapes. Australia  first  opened its market under 

limited conditions in 2002.  The United States has worked  through  the U.S.‐Australia FTA 

SPS  Committee  to  remove  the  majority  of  the  remaining  restrictions.    However,  one 

Australian state, Western Australia, continues to deny market access  for U.S. table grapes. 

This  prohibition  has  been maintained  despite  the  absence  of  significant  pests  during  the 

first  seven  years  of  California  table  grape  exports  to  the  rest  of  Australia.    Australia  has 

recently indicated that it would complete a risk assessment to initiate the process allowing 

California table grapes to gain access to Western Australia.  The United States will continue 

discussions with Australia as it moves forward with this process.   

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.  Until April 2010, Bolivia and the other three Andean Community (CAN) member 

countries (Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru) maintained that CAN rules prevented them  from 

lifting their BSE‐related restrictions. 

In 2009, the United States submitted comments on a proposed 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  countries  could 

establish their own requirements for imports of U.S. live cattle in accordance with the CAN 

risk assessment. 

The U.S. Government continues to engage Bolivia to re‐open its market  for U.S. live cattle, 

as well as U.S. beef and beef products, based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United 

States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 
32 

BRAZIL

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Brazil bans imports of U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products due to the detection of a BSE 

positive  animal  in  the  United  States  in  2003.    In  late  2008,  Brazil  promulgated  a  draft 

regulation  that  establishes  sanitary  requirements  for  the  importation  of  ruminants  and 

ruminant products from countries affected by BSE.  Brazil continues to state that it has not 

completed its review of technical information provided by the United States.  During high‐

level discussions, Brazil indicated it was not willing to conform its import restriction to the 

OIE guidelines.  The United States will continue to engage Brazil to open its market for all 

live  cattle,  beef,  and  beef  products  from  the  United  States  on  based  on  science,  the  OIE 

guidelines, and the United States’ controlled risk status.  

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Pork

Brazil  only  allows  imports  of  U.S.  pork  from  plants  that  its  inspectors  have  individually 

inspected and approved.    This approach is  burdensome  on  the industry and  significantly 

limits the market access of companies that are willing and able to export to Brazil.  Brazil 

has been unable to explain why a plant‐by‐plant inspection system is required rather than 

a systems‐based approach that analyzes the level of food safety protection afforded by the 

U.S. Government’s pork plant inspection and approval system.  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, chilled U.S. pork can be imported into Brazil only if the 

product is tested to be free of trichinae or cold treated.  The United States does not consider 

that  such  testing  is  necessary  as  U.S.  producers  maintain  high  biosecurity  protocols  that 

serve to limit the incidence of trichinosis in the United States to extremely low levels.   

In  May  2009,  the  United  States  proposed  a  voluntary  certification  process,  which  Brazil 

rejected in October 2009.  In August 2010, the United States held technical discussions with 

Brazil  on  U.S.  risk  management  techniques  for  trichinosis.    In  October  2010,  Brazil 

indicated  that it was prepared  to work with  the United States on  this issue.  U.S. officials 

plan  to  travel  to  Brazil  in  2011  to  continue  discussions  and  encourage  Brazil  to  lift  is 

current restrictions.
33 

CHILE

Food Safety  

Pork

Chile  requires  U.S.  pork  to  be  frozen  or  tested  as  a  mitigation  measure  for  trichinosis.  

Chile’s  testing  requirement is  costly, and is a  significant impediment  to U.S.  fresh/chilled 

pork exports to Chile.  The United States does not consider that such testing is necessary as 

U.S.  producers  maintain  high  biosecurity  protocols  that  serve  to  limit  the  appearance  of 

trichinae in the United States to extremely low levels.  As an alternative, the United States 

has proposed less trade restrictive risk mitigation measures to assure Chile that U.S. pork 

exports do not contain trichinae.  The United States will continue to work with regulatory 

authorities in Chile to resolve this trade concern. 

Beef and Beef Products

In  2003,  Chile  banned  imports  of  all  U.S.  beef  and  beef  products,  live  cattle,  and  beef‐

containing pet  food due  to  the detection of a BSE positive animal in  the United States.   In 

July 2005, Chile agreed  to partially re‐open its market  to U.S. deboned beef  from animals 

under 30 months of age. 

In  April  2009,  Chile  revised  its  beef  and  beef  products  import  statute  to  align  with  the 

recommendations  set  forth  by  the  OIE.    As  part  of  the  SPS  Committee  agenda  under  the 

United States‐Chile FTA, the United States and Chile began a series of negotiations to open 

the  Chilean  market  to  exports  of  U.S.  beef  and  beef  products.    In  March  2011,  these 

negotiations  concluded  with  an  agreement  that  allows  for  imports  of  U.S.  beef  and  beef 

products that are accompanied by an appropriate health certificate.  Chile is now importing 

a  full  range of U.S. beef and beef products, consistent with  the OIE guidelines on  the safe 

trade in these products.   

However, Chile continues to maintain unjustified restrictions on imports of U.S. live cattle, 

despite a commitment to fully adhere to OIE guidelines.  The United States will continue to 

engage Chile  to achieve  full market access  for live cattle  from  the United States based on 

science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Poultry

Chilean  authorities  impose  a  trade‐restrictive  zero  tolerance  limit  for  the  presence  of 

Salmonella in imports  of mechanically  deboned U.S.  fresh  poultry.    Such a  zero  tolerance 

standard  for  pathogens  is  unwarranted  because  it  is  generally  accepted  by  food  safety 

experts and  scientists  that  such  pathogens  cannot  be entirely eliminated  from  raw meat, 

and that proper storage, handling, and cooking of raw meat reduce significantly the risk of 
34 

a number of food‐borne diseases caused by these microbes.  The United States continues to 

engage with Chile on this issue. 

CHINA

Food Safety

H1N1 Restrictions

China  was  among  the  countries  that  banned  U.S.  pork  products  in  2009  due  to  H1N1 

influenza concerns.  In October 2009, Ambassador Kirk, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, 

and  Commerce  Secretary  Gary  Locke  participated  in  a  meeting  of  the  U.S.‐China  Joint 

Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) in Hangzhou, China, where China announced 

its intent  to  remove its H1N1  ban  on  pork  products.    Following that meeting,  the United 

States pressed China to implement that commitment.   

On  March  19,  2010,  USTR  and  USDA  announced  that  the  United  States  and  China  had 

reached agreement to re‐open the Chinese market to U.S. pork and pork products.  In May 

2010, China and the United States concluded an agreement on export certificate language 

referencing the H1N1 influenza A virus.  Such a certificate accompanies an export shipment 

and attests to the fulfillment of various SPS requirements.   Nevertheless, the United States 

will continue to request that China remove references to the H1N1 influenza A virus from 

the export certificate for pork and pork products given the international consensus that the 

H1N1 influenza A virus is not transmitted by food products.   

In March 2011, China informed the United States that it was lifting its H1N1‐related import 

suspension  on  U.S.‐origin  live  swine  as  a  result of  an  agreement  with  USDA  to  conduct 

H1N1  testing  and  certification.    Under  the  new  arrangement,  USDA  will  temporarily  test 

and certify that live swine exported from the United States are free from the H1N1 virus.  In 

return, China agreed immediately to resume imports of U.S. live swine. 

Ractopamine

China  bans  imports  of  pork  containing  any  residue  of  the  veterinary  drug  ractopamine.  

China  has  enforced  this  ban  by  barring  imports  from  several  U.S.  producers  that  have 

previously  shipped  pork  to  China  that  contained  trace  amounts  of  ractopamine  at 

concentrations  below  the  U.S.  tolerance  and  the  proposed  Codex  MRL.    Although  China 

maintains  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 any event, the United States strongly disagrees with China’s assertions. 

During meetings of the JCCT Agricultural Working Group in 2010, U.S. officials asked China 

to adopt an interim MRL while awaiting the Codex Commission’s final adoption of an MRL. 

China’s Ministry of Agriculture denied the U.S. request, claiming that China needs to await a 
35 

final  decision  by  Codex.    The  United  States  will  continue  to  press  China  on  this  issue  in 

bilateral discussions and at Codex. 

See section III.E for an explanation of the ractopamine trade issue. 

Meat and Poultry

China has imposed a zero tolerance limit  for the presence of Salmonella, Listeria spp., and 

other  pathogens  in  imported  meat  and  poultry.    Such  a  zero  tolerance  standard  for 

pathogens  is  unwarranted  because  it  is  generally  accepted  by  food  safety  experts  and 

scientists  that  pathogens  cannot  be  entirely  eliminated  from  raw  meat,  and  that  proper 

storage,  handling,  and  cooking  of  raw  meat  reduce  significantly  the  risk  of  a  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 China has  yet  to do so.  The United States continues  to engage 

China on this issue. 

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, China followed that 

announcement with a more detailed measure setting out 22 conditions for entry, many of 

which were unrelated to BSE mitigation.  The cumulative effect of these restrictions is that 

the market remains closed to U.S. beef and beef products. 

In  March  2010,  USTR  and  USDA  senior  officials  met  with  their  Chinese  counterparts  in 

Beijing  to  restart  beef market access  negotiations  based  on  full  consistency with  the OIE 

guidelines  on  BSE.    Bilateral  discussions  on  U.S.  beef  exports  continued  throughout  the 

remainder  of  2010,  including  high‐level  meetings  between  USDA  and  USTR  officials  and 

their Chinese counterparts.  During the JCCT meeting in December 2010, the United States 

and China agreed to resume beef market access talks at the start of 2011.   

During the first two weeks of January 2011, senior officials from USTR and USDA led a team 

of  experts  from  both  agencies  and  FDA  for  a  meeting  with  their  counterparts  in  Beijing.  

The  talks  were  beneficial  both  in  assisting  the  two  sides  in  understanding  each  other’s 

positions on the key issues as well as in narrowing differences in a number of areas.  The 

participants  agreed  to  continue  the  discussions  in  an  effort  to  reach  an  agreement  that 
36 

would allow  trade  to resume based on science,  the OIE guidelines, and  the United States’ 

controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Dairy Products

On April 21, 2010, China informed the United States that it would suspend imports of U.S.‐

origin  dairy  products  beginning  on May  1,  2010 if  the  two  governments  could  not  reach 

agreement on a new export certificate.  China’s attestation requirements for the certificate 

related  to  animal  health  and  contaminants  do  not  appear  to  be  consistent  with  OIE  and 

Codex guidelines.   

Responding to requests by the U.S. Government, China moved the implementation deadline 

to  June 1, 2010, and allowed the United States to continue to ship products to China after 

the  new  rules  went  into  effect  so  long  as  technical  talks  to  resolve  the  issue  were 

continuing.  The United States has proposed that the two sides conclude a memorandum of 

understanding  that  would  keep  China’s  market  open  to  U.S.  dairy  products.    The  United 

States  will  continue  to  work  in  2011  to  ensure  that  any  changes  to  China’s  dairy 

certification  rules  are  based  on  science  and  do  not  unduly  restrict  imports  of  U.S.  dairy 

products.   

Animal Health  

Bovine Products

In  2003,  China  banned  imports  of  low‐risk  U.S.  bovine  products (i.e.,  bovine  semen  and 

embryos,  protein‐free  tallow,  and  non‐ruminant  feeds  and  fats)  even  though  they  are 

deemed  safe  to  trade  by  the  OIE  regardless  of  a  country’s  BSE  status.    By  2006,  U.S. 

producers were exporting  these products  pursuant  to  protocols  signed in  2004, with  the 

exception of protein‐free tallow. 

U.S. exports of protein‐free tallow have still not resumed.  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 intended  for 

industrial use.  However, since that time the United States and China have not yet reached 

agreement on what the export certificate that accompanies U.S. exports must state.  

Poultry

China  currently  bans  poultry  and  poultry  products  from  Arkansas,  Pennsylvania,  Texas, 

and Virginia due  to detections of LPAI in  those states.   In addition, China bans imports of 

U.S.‐origin  poultry  and  poultry  products  that  are  transshipped through  these  four  states.  
37 

China’s  current  AI‐related  import  bans  do  not  appear  to  be  science‐based  or  consistent 

with OIE guidelines.  

During bilateral meetings during 2010, including JCCT working group meetings, the United 

States  pressed  China  to  remove  its  state‐level  bans  and  to  adopt  OIE‐consistent  policies 

governing imports of U.S. poultry and poultry products.  During the course of the December 

2010 JCCT meeting, China announced that it would lift its AI‐related bans then in effect on 

U.S.  poultry  products  from  Idaho  and  Kentucky.    The  two  sides  agreed  to  hold  further 

technical  talks  to  address  China’s  remaining  bans  on  imports  from  the  four  remaining 

states.  The United States will continue to press China in 2011 to remove those bans. 

See section III.A for an explanation of the AI trade issue. 

Animal Feed

In 2004, U.S. and Chinese officials signed a veterinary health protocol  that authorized  the 

shipment of U.S.‐origin non‐ruminant derived animal fats and feed (including pet  food) to 

China.  As of June 2010, 149 U.S. facilities (including those that export fish meal) have been 

approved  by  the  United  States  to  export  these  products  to  China.    However,  China’s 

Ministry  of  Agriculture  (MOA)  maintains  a  duplicative  and  cumbersome  product‐based 

registration process for U.S. companies that produce animal feed (including pet food) that 

has prevented or inhibited products from entering the Chinese market.  U.S. companies that 

desire to export pet food to China must first have U.S. authorities certify that the exporting 

facilities meet the Chinese requirements in accordance with the veterinary health protocol 

(this  is  a  separate  facility  registration  procedure  under  the  purview  of  China’s  General 

Administration  of  Quality  Supervision,  Inspection  and  Quarantine  (AQSIQ)).    After 

completing this process, U.S. companies must register their products with China’s MOA. 

The MOA’s requirements still present a significant barrier to U.S. pet food, animal feed, and 

feed  additive  exports.    China  has  thus  far  not  been  receptive  to  USDA  requests  either  to 

eliminate  the  MOA  registration  requirement  or  justify  its  duplicative  requirements.  

However,  the  United  States  continues  to  engage  China  on  the  issue,  both  at  WTO  SPS 

Committee meetings and bilaterally. 

Plant Health  

Apples

Since  1995,  China  has  only  allowed  imports  of  two  varieties  of  U.S.‐origin  apples  from 

Idaho,  Oregon,  and  Washington.    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 California. 

U.S.  authorities  have  provided  their  Chinese  counterparts  with  a  substantial  amount  of 

peer‐reviewed  scientific  information  indicating  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  mature 
38 

symptomless commercial apples can transmit fire blight.  However, China continues to cite 

concerns about this disease as the reason for not approving additional apple varieties from 

the three approved states.   

In the course of bilateral technical meetings in November 2010, the United States and China 

continued to discuss developing an agreed list of apple pests that would be the appropriate 

focus of China’s PRA for U.S apples.  Chinese officials have indicated that once the two sides 

agree on the pest list, China will undertake a risk assessment based on that list.   

Pears

China  does  not  permit imports  of U.S.  pears, in  particular,  pears  from  California, Oregon, 

and  Washington,  due  to  concerns  over  fire  blight.    In  May  2007,  U.S.  officials  provided 

AQSIQ with research confirming that mature, symptomless pear fruit is not a pathway for 

fire blight and supplemented this with additional information in December 2009.  As part 

of  its  ongoing  evaluation  of  the  important  U.S.  request  to  open  China’s  market  to  these 

products,  AQSIQ  has  initiated  a  risk  assessment  and  is  reviewing  additional  pest 

management  information  that  U.S.  regulatory  authorities  have  provided.    In  2010,  the 

United States asked China to add pears from Idaho to the list of pears from other states that 

China is  evaluating  for  risk  assessment  purposes.    During  bilateral  technical meetings in 

November  2010,  the  United  States  and  China  agreed  to  continue  technical  discussions 

regarding imports of U.S. pears with the goal of having China provide the United States with 

a set of proposed pest mitigation measures for it to review in the first half of 2011.   

Potatoes

China has not permitted imports of U.S.‐origin table stock potatoes based on concerns over 

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 for these potatoes.  The United 

States continues to engage China on this issue in a variety of bilateral and multilateral fora, 

including in the WTO SPS Committee.     

Strawberries

China granted special permission for importations of fresh strawberry fruit from California 

for  the  Shanghai  World  Expo  and  the  2008  Beijing  Olympics.    U.S.  growers  shipped 

approximately 2,168 pounds of strawberries to China for the Olympics, and the shipments 

raised  no  apparent  concerns.    (The  U.S.  industry  elected  not  to  ship  strawberries  to  the 

Shanghai World  Expo  due  to  quantity  restrictions  that  the  Chinese  authorities imposed.)  

During bilateral  technical meetings in 2010, China indicated  that it had not completed its 

final PRA for U.S. strawberries.  The United States will continue to press Chinese authorities 

to complete their review of the U.S. Government’s request for permanent market access.  
39 

Biotechnology

Pursuant  to  China’s  regulatory  system  for  products  of  agricultural  biotechnology,  a 

biotechnology product developed in a country other than China must  first be approved in 

the country of export before it can be  the subject of an application  for use in China.  The 

United  States  has  concerns  that  this  requirement  creates  an  automatic  delay  in  China’s 

biotech  approval  process  that  may  lead  to  significant  disruption  in  exports  of  U.S. 

biotechnology  products  that are approved  for marketing in  the United States  but  not  yet 

eligible  for  use  in  China.    Chinese  government  restrictions  on  investment,  such  as  joint 

venture requirements and limits on ownership, also constrain foreign companies’ ability to 

engage  in  biotechnology  product  development  in  China  and  maintain  control  over 

important genetic resources.  The United States held bilateral consultations with China on 

these issues in 2010, and will continue to engage with China on this subject in 2011. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

COLOMBIA

Food Safety  

Poultry   

In  August  2007,  the  Colombian  Ministry  of  Health  began  implementing  a  zero  tolerance 

standard for Salmonella on imported raw poultry products, which restricted imports of U.S. 

those  products.    A  zero  tolerance  standard  for  this  pathogen  appears  to  lack  a  scientific 

basis  because  it  is  generally  accepted  by  food  safety  experts  and  scientists  that  this 

pathogen cannot be entirely eliminated from raw meat, and that proper storage, handling, 

and cooking of raw meat reduce significantly  the risk of a number of  food‐borne diseases 

caused  by  Salmonella.    In  response  to  growing  complaints,  Colombian  authorities 

implemented  an  agreement  with  Colombian  food  processors  to  eliminate  the  zero 

tolerance  requirement  for  mechanically  deboned  poultry  meat  imports  for  further 

processing.    The  agreement,  however,  does  not  cover  imports  of  raw  poultry  products 

intended  for retail sale, creating uncertainty  for U.S. producers and Colombian importers.  

The United States will continue to work with Colombia to address continuing U.S. concerns 

about these requirements. 

Rice

In March 2009, Colombia rejected a shipment of U.S. paddy rice, claiming that it contained 

fungus  rice  smut  (Tilletia).    The  U.S.  Government,  with  assistance  from  U.S.  industry, 

undertook  a  lengthy  negotiation  with  the  Colombian  Agricultural  Institute  (ICA), 

Colombia’s SPS regulatory agency, as a result of which ICA eventually issued phytosanitary 

import certificates  for other shipments of paddy rice.  These certificates required a costly 

methyl bromide treatment for each shipment.  In 2010, Colombian importers were unable 

to  obtain  phytosanitary  import  certificates  as  ICA  indicated  that  U.S.  exports  would  be 
40 

denied entry due  to concerns with  fungus rice smut.   In April 2010,  ICA sent a request  to 

the CAN SPS regulatory agency for help in developing a PRA for Tilletia.  It could take up to 

five  years  for  Colombia  to  complete  the  PRA.    The  United  States  has  expressed  concern 

regarding Colombia’s handling of U.S. paddy  rice exports, both to  the  ICA and Colombia’s 

Ministry of Trade as recently as March 2011. 

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.  Until April 2010, Colombia 

and  the  other  three  CAN member  countries  (Bolivia,  Ecuador,  and  Peru)  had maintained 

that CAN rules prevented them from lifting their BSE‐related restrictions on live cattle. 

In  2009,  the  United  States  submitted  comments  to  CAN  on  a  proposed  risk  assessment, 

which stipulated that only live animals under 24 months of age could be imported.  A CAN 

resolution, published April 13, 2010, stipulated that CAN member countries could establish 

their  own  requirements  for  imports  of  U.S.  live  cattle  in  accordance  with  the  CAN  risk 

assessment. 

In  June  2010,  Colombia  temporarily  allowed  live  cattle  imports  from  the  United  States 

under  requirements  that  are  not  commercially  viable.    Colombia  is  in  the  process  of 

reviewing  those  requirements.    The  United  States  continues  to  engage  with  Colombia  to 

re‐open its market for U.S. live cattle based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United 

States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Poultry

In 2006, Colombia formally recognized that the U.S. poultry inspection system is equivalent 

to Colombia’s.  The  two countries also reached agreement on a U.S. sanitary certificate  to 

accompany U.S. poultry and poultry products from Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, and Oregon.  

Such a certificate accompanies an export shipment and attests to the fulfillment of various 

SPS  requirements.    However,  Colombia’s  Ministry  of  Agriculture  continued  to  impose 

separate, AI‐related import  requirements  on U.S.  poultry and  poultry  products  that were 

not  consistent  with  the  relevant  OIE  recommendations,  and  which  resulted  in  a  ban  on 

imports of poultry and poultry products from a number of U.S. states.  After several years of 

bilateral negotiations, Colombia agreed to lift its AI‐related restrictions on U.S. poultry and 

poultry products in August 2010.  The Ministry of Agriculture continues to ban U.S. poultry 

genetics,  including  hatching  eggs  and  day  old  chicks  from  Arkansas,  Idaho,  and  Oregon, 

based on separate AI‐related import requirements that are not consistent with the relevant 

OIE recommendations.    
41 

See section III.A for an explanation of the AI trade issue. 

COSTA RICA  

Food Safety  

Poultry

In 2008, the Central American Common Market (CACM) member countries, including Costa 

Rica, notified the WTO of their intent to establish microbiological criteria  for a number of 

foods, including zero  tolerance  for Salmonella on poultry meat.  The United States shared 

with the CACM members, both in writing and in meetings and workshops, concerns that the 

proposed zero tolerance for Salmonella on poultry meat appeared to lack a scientific basis 

because  it  is  generally  accepted  by  food  safety  experts  and  scientists  that  this  pathogen 

cannot  be  entirely  eliminated  from  raw  meat,  and  that  proper  storage,  handling,  and 

cooking  of  raw  meat  reduce  significantly  the  risk  of  a  number  of  food‐borne  diseases 

caused by Salmonella.  After reviewing  the U.S. comments on  the zero  tolerance proposal, 

the  CACM  members  decided  that  each  country  would  establish  its  own  country‐specific 

standard for Salmonella on raw poultry.  In September 2010, U.S. officials met with Central 

American  government  authorities  to  discuss  this  issue  further.    Costa  Rican  officials 

explained  that  Costa  Rica  was  contemplating  legislation  on  Salmonella  tolerances  and 

looking  specifically  at  moving  to  allowable  levels  above  zero.    The  United  States  will 

continue  to  work  with  government  officials  in  Costa  Rica  and  the  other  CACM  member 

countries to address U.S. concerns regarding the zero tolerance policy.  

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC  

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

The Dominican Republic  bans imports  of U.S.  beef and  beef products  from cattle  over 30 

months  of  age  due  to  concerns  about  BSE.    The  United  States  continues  to  engage  the 

Dominican Republic  to provide  full market access  for all beef and beef products  from  the 

United States  based  on  science,  the OIE guidelines, and  the United States’  controlled  risk 

status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 
42 

ECUADOR

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Ecuador 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.    Until  April  2010,  Ecuador  and  the  other  three  CAN  member  countries  (Bolivia, 

Colombia,  and  Peru)  maintained  that  CAN  rules  prevented  them  from  lifting  their 

BSE‐related restrictions. 

In 2009, the United States submitted comments on a proposed 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  countries  would 

establish their own requirements for imports of U.S. live cattle in accordance with the CAN 

risk assessment. 

The  United  States  continues  to  engage  with  Ecuador  to  re‐open  its  market  for  U.S.  live 

cattle, as well as U.S. beef and beef products, based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the 

United States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Animal Health  

Poultry

Until recently, Ecuador banned imports of poultry products and live animals from Arkansas 

and West  Virginia  due  to  LPAI. U.S.  officials expressed  concerns  about  these  restrictions, 

which  were  not  consistent  with  OIE  guidelines.    Ecuador  removed  its  import  ban  in 

December 2010. 

See section III.A for an explanation of the AI trade issue. 

EGYPT

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

At  the start of 2010, Egypt only allowed imports of boneless beef, including livers, hearts 

and kidneys,  from cattle less  than 30 months of age  that originated in Mexico, Canada, or 

the United States, based on BSE concerns.  During 2010, the United States urged Egypt  to 

re‐open  its  market  for  all  U.S.  beef  and  beef  products.    On  January  28,  2011,  Egypt  fully 
43 

opened its market  to all U.S. beef and beef products based on science,  the OIE guidelines, 

and the United States’ controlled risk status.   

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Animal Health  

Poultry

Egypt currently bans certain U.S. poultry products due to concerns about AI.  While Egypt 

currently allows imports of whole frozen U.S. poultry, U.S. poultry parts and offal products 

remain prohibited.  The United States had been negotiating with Egypt to allow imports of 

U.S. turkey parts and offals, but Egypt has postponed the completion of these negotiations. 

See section III.A for an explanation of the AI trade issue. 

Plant Health

Wheat

In April 2010, Egypt's Central Administration for Plant Quarantine (CAPQ) imposed a zero 

tolerance policy  for  the presence of Ambrosia  (ragweed) in wheat imports.  One or more 

varieties  of  Ambrosia  are  present  in  all  major  wheat  exporting  countries,  including  in 

Egypt.    CAPQ  and  the  General  Authority  for  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 a high degree of risk that 

shipments could be rejected because of this restriction.  The U.S. Government and industry 

are working together to convince Egypt to remove this unnecessary restriction. 

Seed Potatoes

Egypt remains one of the world’s last large importers of seed potatoes that bans imports of 

U.S.  seed  potatoes.    Egypt  requires a mandatory  field  trial  for  three  seasons, as well as a 

mutually  agreed  work  plan  for  all  varieties  for  which  U.S.  seed  potato  exporters  seek 

marketing  approval.    After  the  two  sides  held  a  first  round  of technical  meetings  on  the 

subject in 2010, Egypt agreed  to conduct  field  trials  for U.S. varieties.  The trials began at 

the start of 2011.  Egyptian authorities granted an import permit for the U.S. seed potatoes 

needed to carry out the field trial.  The United States is urging Egypt to develop a mutually 

agreeable  work  plan  that  will  allow  for  commercial  shipments  of  U.S.  seed  potatoes  to 

Egypt. 
44 

EL SALVADOR  

Food Safety  

Poultry

In 2008, CACM member countries, including El Salvador, notified the WTO of their intent to 

establish  microbiological  criteria  for  a  number  of  foods,  including  zero  tolerance  for 

Salmonella  on  poultry  meat.    The  United  States  shared  with  CACM  members,  both  in 

writing and in meetings and workshops, its concerns that the proposed zero tolerance for 

Salmonella  on  poultry  meat  appeared  to  lack  a  scientific  basis  because  it  is  generally 

accepted  by  food  safety  experts  and  scientists  that  this  pathogen  cannot  be  entirely 

eliminated  from  raw  meat,  and  that  proper  storage,  handling,  and  cooking  of  raw  meat 

reduce  significantly  the  risk  of  a  number  of  food‐borne  diseases  caused  by  Salmonella.  

After  reviewing  the  U.S.  comments  on  this  proposal,  CACM  members  decided  that  each 

country  would  establish  its  own  standard  for  Salmonella  on  raw  poultry.    In  September 

2010, U.S. officials met with Central American government authorities to discuss this issue 

further.  El Salvador is updating its regulations, and is aware of the need to avoid creating 

an unnecessary  trade barrier  for U.S. poultry exports.  The United States will continue  to 

work with government  officials in  El  Salvador  and  the  other  CACM member  countries  to 

address U.S. concerns regarding the zero tolerance policy. 

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Due  to  concerns  about  BSE,  El  Salvador  prohibits imports  of  U.S.  beef  and  beef  products 

from  cattle  over  30  months  of  age,  as  well  imports  of  non‐breeding  cattle.    The  United 

States continues to engage with El Salvador to open fully its beef and beef products market 

based on science, the OIE guidelines and the United States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

ETHIOPIA  

Biotechnology

In September 2009, Ethiopia established a biosafety law which has the potential to become 

an unnecessary barrier to trade in biotech products by imposing what appear to be unduly 

burdensome  documentation  and  testing  requirements.    Ethiopia  has  since  issued 

implementing  regulations.   U.S.  officials  continue  to  engage  Ethiopian  officials  to  express 

concerns  about  the  restrictive  biosafety  legislation  and  to  seek  clarification  regarding 

implementation procedures. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 
45 

EUROPEAN UNION  

Biotechnology

EU measures  governing  the importation  and  use  of  agricultural  goods  produced  through 

the  use  of  modern  bioengineering  (often  known  as  “agricultural  biotechnology”or 

“biotech”)  have  resulted in  substantial  barriers  to  trade.   Several U.S.  commodity  crops  – 

including  corn  and  soybeans  –  are  produced  predominately  from  biotech  varieties.  

Restrictions  on  biotech  products  can  result  in  import  prohibitions  on  U.S‐produced 

commodities, as well as prohibitions on the cultivation of biotech seeds.   

Under EU law, each biotech  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 biotechnology product, EU biotechnology legislation provides that 

individual Member States may invoke their own bans under a so‐called “safeguard clause.” 

The  European  Food  Safety  Authority  (EFSA)  undertakes  the  scientific  assessment.    EFSA 

assessments  of  biotech  products  generally  take  longer  than  comparable  scientific 

assessments in the United States and other countries.  However, EFSA generally reaches the 

same scientific conclusion as scientific authorities in the United States and other countries.  

EFSA has never concluded that a biotech variety in U.S. commercial production is unsafe.   

If  EFSA  concludes  that  the  biotech  trait  is  as  safe  as  its  conventional  counterpart,  the 

application  will  proceed  to  the  “comitology”  process.    The  European  Commission  first 

prepares an approval measure based on  the scientific assessment.  The Commission  then 

submits the measure to a regulatory committee comprising representatives of each of the 

27 EU Member States.  Not once in over 12 years has an EU regulatory committee accepted 

a proposed measure to approve a new biotech 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 biotech 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, the 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  biotech  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  obligations  to  consider  biotech  applications  without  undue  delay  with  respect  to  24 

specific  biotech  product  applications;  and  (3)  that  EU  Member  State  bans  on  products 
46 

approved in the EU prior to the moratorium were not supported by scientific evidence and 

were thus inconsistent with the EU’s SPS 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 biotechnology products.  The United States continues  to engage  the European 

Commission  in  an  effort  to  normalize  trade  in  biotech  products.

Dozens  of  biotech  product applications are  backed  up in  the EU approval  system.    In  the 

first few months following the publication of the 2010 SPS Report, the EU approved several 

biotech products for use as food and animal feed.  However, no additional biotech products 

have been approved since July 2010.  In addition, with respect to approvals for cultivation 

use,  the  EU  has  not  approved  in  over  12  years  a  single  biotech  product  of  commercial 

significance to the United States.   

EU delays in biotech product approvals can result in prohibitions not only on the products 

subject to the delays, but can also result in prohibitions on shipments of approved varieties.  

Under  the  EU’s implementation  of its  biotechnology legislation,  the  presence in U.S.  crop 

shipments of traces of biotechnology 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 late February 

2011,  Member  States  approved  a  Commission  proposal  to  address  the  presence  of  trace 

amounts  of  EU‐unapproved  biotech  products  in  shipments.   The  proposal  only  covers 

shipments  of  imported  animal  feed  (thus  excluding  food  for  human  consumption),  and 

provides what appears to be an impractically low threshold level.   

With respect to  the Member State bans that the WTO panel  found to be inconsistent with 

the EU’s SPS obligations, the EU has taken steps to address some but not all of these bans.  

However, EU Member States have continued  to adopt new bans on products approved at 

the EU‐level.  In most cases, the European Commission requests that EFSA 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 a Member State to lift an unjustified ban.  However, 

the  EU  regulatory  committees  have  blocked  each  such  measure,  just  as  the  regulatory 

committees have failed to approve new biotech 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  biotech  crops in its 

territory.    The  package  includes  a  new  recommendation  on  the  co‐existence  of  biotech 

crops  with  conventional  and  organic  crops,  and  a  proposal  amending  the  governing 

legislation.   The  recommendation  on  co‐existence  took  immediate  effect.    It  provides 

Member  States  greater  flexibility  when  developing  national  co‐existence  measures,  and 
47 

allows  them  to  define  biotech‐crop‐free  areas.   The  legislative  proposal  is  still  under 

consideration, and is subject to “co‐decision” by both the Member States and the European 

Parliament.  It would allow Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of biotech 

crops  in  all  or  part  of  their  territory.    Any  such  restrictions  or  prohibitions  must  not  be 

based on safety, and instead must be based on other societal concerns.    

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

Food Safety  

Food Additives

On  July  2,  2009,  the  EU  notified  the  WTO  of  adoption  of  its  final  regulations  on  food 

additives.  The  final  regulations  contain  a  provision,  not  present  in  the  draft  regulations, 

that  mandates  the  inclusion  of  warning  statements  regarding  hyperactivity  on  products 

containing  six  synthetic  colors  (Sunset  Yellow,  Quinoline  Yellow,  Carmoisine,  Allura  Red, 

Tartrazine, and Ponceau 4R).  Manufacturers are now required to apply a label to products 

containing any of these six colors stating that that the color “may have an adverse effect on 

activity and attention in children.”  Moreover, discussions are now underway in the EU to 

expand  the list of additives  for which warning labels will be  required.  The United States 

has asked  the EU  to provide more information  the alleged  risks posed by  these synthetic 

colors.    

The  certified  equivalents  of  three  of  the  six  colors  (Sunset  Yellow,  Allura  Red,  and 

Tartrazine) are approved  for  use in  food  by  FDA and are widely used  by  the global  food 

industry.  FDA also has approved the use of Quinoline Yellow’s certified equivalent for use 

in  drugs,  cosmetics,  and  medical  devices.    The  warning  labels  that  the  EU  mandates  are 

neither required in  the United States nor justified by Codex guidelines (either adopted or 

currently proposed). 

The EU’s list of colors and the subject of hyperactivity was addressed in a much‐criticized 

research piece known as the Southampton Study.  This study concluded that these six color 

additives  presented  a  risk  of  hyperactivity.    In  November  2009,  EFSA  released  scientific 

opinions  that  contradicted  the  results  of  the  Southampton  Study,  concluding  that  the 

currently available data did not substantiate a link between the individual color additives 

and possible behavioral effects. 

The United States disagrees that FDA‐certified color additives have negative health impacts 

for children when these colors are included in food products in amounts prescribed under 

U.S.  law,  and  therefore  does  not  consider  that  warning  labels  are  necessary.    Despite 

requests  by  senior  U.S.  Government  officials  for  a  delay  in  implementing  its  labeling 

requirement  until  it  undertook  further  scientific  review,  the  EU  implemented  this 

requirement  on  July  20,  2010.    The  United  States  continues  to  urge  the  EU  to  delay 

implementation  of  this  measure  to  minimize  negative  effects  on  trade  while  technical 

discussions are underway. 
48 

Beef and Beef Products

In May 2009, the United States signed a MOU with the EU to resolve on a provisional basis 

their WTO  dispute  over  beef  raised with  growth‐promoting  hormones.    The MOU, which 

took effect in August 2009, provides additional duty‐free access to the EU market for high‐

quality  beef  produced  from  cattle  that  have  not  been  raised  with  growth‐promoting 

hormones – 20,000 metric tons (MT) in each of the  first three years, increasing to 45,000 

MT  beginning  in  the  fourth  year.    Under  the  MOU,  the  United  States  may  maintain  the 

additional duties it had in place on EU products in March 2009, will not impose new duties 

on EU products during the initial three‐year period, and will eliminate all retaliatory import 

duties during the fourth year.  Before the end of the four‐year period, the United States and 

the EU will seek to conclude a longer‐term agreement. 

Seafood

Under  the  provisions  of  the  United  States‐European  Community  Veterinary  Equivalence 

Agreement,  U.S.‐origin  molluscan  shellfish  had  been  permitted  for  export  to  the  EU.    In 

2008,  the  European  Commission’s  Directorate  General  Health  and  Consumers  (SANCO) 

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 U.S.‐origin molluscan shellfish, except scallops, in July 2010.   

The U.S. Government has actively engaged with the European Commission on this issue and 

has  provided  the  EU  sufficient  evidence  that  U.S.‐origin  molluscan  shellfish  are  safe  to 

consume. The United States believes  that  the EU has  the information it needs  to make an 

equivalence determination.   

Poultry

In 1997, the EU began blocking imports of U.S. poultry products that have 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 processing 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  that  did  not  appear  to  be  based  on  science.    EU  Member  States 
49 

rejected  the  Commission’s  flawed  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.    

Ractopamine

The EU currently maintains a ban on pork produced with ractopamine, a veterinary drug 

that promotes lean meat growth in pigs and certain other  farm animals, despite scientific 

evidence  indicating  that  ractopamine  is  safe.    As  a  consequence  of  this  ban,  U.S.  pork 

exporters must participate in  the burdensome Pork for the EU Program  to  verify  that  the 

pork has not been produced using ractopamine.  In addition, U.S. pork shipments to the EU 

must  undergo expensive laboratory  testing  to  verify  the absence  of  ractopamine  residue. 

These requirements, which appear to lack scientific justification, act as a major impediment 

to U.S. pork exports to the EU, confining U.S. exports to a small group of U.S. suppliers. 

See section III.E for an explanation of the ractopamine trade issue. 

Animal Health  

Animal By­Products

In 2002, the EU published Regulation (EC) 1774/2002, which established problematic new 

requirements  for  marketing  animal  by‐products  that  are  not  intended  for  human 

consumption,  including  by‐products  used  in  materials  intended  for  animal  consumption.  

Some  of  the  previously  high  volume U.S. exports  that  this  regulation  barred included  pet 

food, tallow, and other animal protein products.  In most cases, the requirements appeared 

to be unwarranted.   

Starting  in  2002,  APHIS  met  with  EU  representatives  repeatedly  in  an  attempt  to  shape 

revisions  to  Regulation  (EC)  1774/2002.    In  2009,  the  EU  published  Regulation  (EU) 

1069/2009  to begin  the replacement of Regulation (EC) 1774/2002.  The new regulation 

does  appear  to  address  many  major  U.S.  concerns,  but  also  imposes  some  new 

requirements  about  which  the  United  States  remains  concerned.    It  did  not  change  the 

requirements  for  import  into  the  EU,  but  laid  the  groundwork  for  Regulation  (EU) 

142/2011, which does replace the requirements for import.  APHIS is currently reviewing 

Regulation (EU) 142/2011 to determine the extent of U.S. concerns which will be remedied 

by the revisions.  While review is ongoing, the initial indication is that the new regulation 

will allow significantly more U.S. product to be eligible for export to the EU.  
50 

EU Country­Specific Issues  

Austria  

Biotechnology

Since 1997, Austria has maintained a series of cultivation and import bans on products of 

agricultural biotechnology.  The United States challenged several of these bans at the WTO, 

which found them inconsistent with Austrian and EU obligations under the SPS Agreement.  

In May 2008, Austria lifted its import bans on the MON 810 and T25 biotech corn varieties, 

but  left  in  place  its  cultivation  ban  on  these  varieties.    Moreover,  in  July  2008,  Austria 

issued new import bans on MON 863 corn as well as on three rapeseed (canola) lines.   

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

Bulgaria

Biotechnology

In March 2010, Bulgaria issued a new biotechnology law, which prohibits the cultivation of 

biotech  crops  in  all  protected  regions,  as  well  as  surrounding  areas.    The  combined 

restrictions  cover  the  entire  country  and,  in  effect,  ban  all  biotech  field  trials  and 

production.  In addition, the law requires the Minister of Agriculture to invoke a “safeguard 

clause” for a particular biotech crop in Bulgaria whenever another Member State applies a 

safeguard clause for that same crop in its own territory.  Separately, in July 2010, Bulgaria 

enacted  a  prohibition  on  the  use  of  biotechnology  products  and  ingredients  in  the 

production  of  foods  for  children  and  in  baby  food.    The  new  regulation  also  banned 

distribution and  sale  of  biotech  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  these measures with  the  government  of Bulgaria  and  has  asked 

Bulgaria to provide justifications for them.     

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

France   

Biotechnology

Cultivation in France of MON 810 (a pest‐resistant corn variety) 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 and invoked 

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 has left 

in place its ban on the cultivation of MON 810. 
51 

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

Germany 

Biotechnology

In  2009,  Germany  banned  the  cultivation  of  MON  810  corn  and  invoked  the  “safeguard” 

clause  under  EU  regulations.    EFSA  determined  that  Germany  had  not  presented  any 

scientific  evidence  to  justify  the  new  ban.    Despite  the  EFSA  evaluation,  the  German 

Agricultural Ministry has maintained the MON 810 ban. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

Greece   

Biotechnology

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.    In  August  2009,  Greece 

extended  the  ban  for  another  two  years  and  expanded  the  measure  to  include  both 

importation and cultivation. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

Hungary  

Biotechnology

Since  2005,  Hungary  has  banned  the  import  and  cultivation  of  MON  810.    On  several 

occasions, the European Commission has attempted to require Hungary to lift the ban, but 

has not received adequate support from EU Member States. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

Latvia

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, 88 of 109 municipalities in Latvia have banned the cultivation of biotech 

crops,  and  eight  more  are  working  on  similar  bans.    According  to  Latvia’s  Ministry  of 

Environment,  the  basis  for  the  current  regulation  is  the  “EU  Environment  Ministers 

agreement  ‐ Council Conclusions,” which notes  that biotech–free zones can be created on 

the  basis  of  voluntary  agreements  among  the  “economic  operators”  in  a  particular  area.  
52 

Prior  to  June  18,  2009,  Latvian  law  provided  that  only  the  Cabinet  of  Ministers  could 

prohibit biotech plantings, and such a decision had to be based on scientific evidence that a 

specific biotech crop posed safety concerns for the environment, health, or economy.  The 

United States has engaged the government of Latvia regarding this shift in policy and has 

requested further information about the basis for the current biotech cultivation bans. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

Luxembourg  

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 biotechnology trade issue. 

Poland

Biotechnology

Since 2006, Poland has not only opposed the approval of biotech crops at the EU level, but 

has  taken  official  steps  to  become  “GM‐free.”    The  government  banned  the  sale  and 

registration  of  biotech  seeds  in  mid‐2006  and  passed  legislation  that  would  have 

prohibited  import,  production,  and  use  of  animal  feed  derived  from  biotech  crops  by 

August 12, 2008.  On July 27, 2008, Poland’s president authorized a delay in implementing 

the feed ban through January 1, 2013.  Separately, the Polish Parliament is in the process of 

preparing new legislation to regulate biotech crops in Poland.  The new law, which will not 

directly address the feed ban, is expected to be enacted in the first half of 2012. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

Portugal

Biotechnology

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  officially  to  oppose  Madeira’s  request  by  the  legislated  deadline.  

Madeira’s  authority  for  the  ban  was  further  codified  when,  in  July  2010,  the  European 

Commission  announced  new  “co‐existence”  measures  that  authorize  Member  States  to 

allow, restrict, or ban the cultivation of biotech crops in part or all of  their  territory.  The 

net effect of the Madeira biotech‐free declaration is that no biotech crops can be grown in 

Madeira.  The United States has raised this issue in bilateral meetings with Portugal. 
53 

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

GUATEMALA  

Food Safety  

Poultry

In 2008, CACM member countries, including Guatemala, notified the WTO of their intent to 

establish  microbiological  criteria  for  a  number  of  foods,  including  zero  tolerance  for 

Salmonella  on  poultry  meat.    The  United  States  shared  with  CACM  members,  both  in 

writing  and  in  meetings  and  workshops,  concerns  that  the  proposed  zero  tolerance  for 

Salmonella appeared to lack a scientific basis because it is generally accepted by food safety 

experts and scientists that this pathogen cannot be entirely eliminated from raw meat, and 

that  proper  storage,  handling,  and  cooking  of  raw meat  reduce  significantly  the  risk  of  a 

number of  food‐borne diseases caused by Salmonella.  After reviewing  the U.S. comments 

on  this  proposal,  CACM  members  decided  that  each  country  would  establish  its  own 

standard for Salmonella on raw poultry.  In September 2010, U.S. officials met with Central 

American government authorities to further discuss this issue.  As a result of U.S. outreach, 

Guatemala  has  said  that  it  will  not  apply  a  zero  tolerance  Salmonella  standard  to  U.S. 

poultry exports.  

GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL  

Food Safety

Food Safety Requirements

In May 2007, Bahrain notified the WTO of proposed procedures meant to harmonize food 

safety  import  requirements  among  Gulf  Cooperation  Council  (GCC)  Member  States 

(Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and  the United Arab Emirates).  The United 

States and other WTO Members provided comments outlining significant concerns with the 

procedures, which did not appear to have a scientific basis and would substantially disrupt 

food  exports  to  GCC  Member  States.    The  United  States  has  established  a  dialogue  with 

technical  experts  in  the  GCC  Member  States  and  continues  to  monitor  the  situation  and 

suggest  alternate  procedures  that  are  consistent  with  international  guidelines.    The  GCC 

Member States have indicated  that  they have modified key provisions of  the draft import 

procedures in light of trading partner comments and are continuing  to work on a revised 

set of procedures.  
54 

HONDURAS  

Food Safety  

Poultry

In 2008, CACM member countries, including Honduras, notified the WTO of their intent to 

establish  microbiological  criteria  for  a  number  of  foods,  including  zero  tolerance  for 

Salmonella  on  poultry  meat.    The  United  States  shared  with  CACM  members,  both  in 

writing  and  in  meetings  and  workshops,  concerns  that  the  proposed  zero  tolerance  for 

Salmonella  on  poultry  meat  appeared  to  lack  a  scientific  basis  because  it  is  generally 

accepted  by  food  safety  experts  and  scientists  that  this  pathogen  cannot  be  entirely 

eliminated  from  raw  meat,  and  that  proper  storage,  handling,  and  cooking  of  raw  meat 

reduce  significantly  the  risk  of  a  number  of  food‐borne  diseases  caused  by  Salmonella.  

After  reviewing  the  U.S.  comments  on  this  proposal,  CACM  members  decided  that  each 

country would establish its own standard for Salmonella on raw poultry.  In June 2009, the 

Government  of  Honduras  established  a  20  percent  Salmonella  tolerance  for  raw  poultry 

products, replacing its previous zero tolerance standard and resolving concerns the United 

States had expressed regarding a possible trade barrier for U.S. poultry exports.   

HONG KONG

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

In December 2005, Hong Kong partially re‐opened its market to deboned beef from cattle 

less  than  30  months  of  age,  with  numerous  restrictions  and  additional  measures  that 

appear  to  be inconsistent  with  the  OIE  guidelines.    These  unwarranted  restrictions  have 

discouraged most qualified U.S. beef exporters from shipping to Hong Kong. 

In October  2009, Hong Kong  authorities  conducted  a  verification  visit  to  beef  processing 

facilities in the United States.  In August 2010, Hong Kong provided a report of its findings 

of the site visits, which the United States is reviewing.  The United States will continue to 

engage with Hong Kong to open fully its market for all U.S. beef and beef products based on 

science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue.
55 

INDIA

Food Safety  

Dairy Products

Since  2003,  India  has  imposed  unwarranted  SPS  requirements  on  dairy  imports,  which 

have  essentially  precluded  U.S.  access  to  India’s  dairy  market,  one  of  the  largest  in  the 

world.  For example,  India requires  the U.S. Government  to certify  that any milk destined 

for India has been treated to ensure the destruction of paratuberculosis, which according to 

India, is linked to Crohn’s Disease.  Despite repeated requests from the United States, India 

has not provided scientific evidence to substantiate this assertion, and has declined to take 

into account evidence  to  the  contrary  submitted  by  the United States.   The United States 

maintains  that  the presence of paratuberculosis in dairy products does not pose a human 

health risk, and India should not make elimination of this bacterium a condition for issuing 

a sanitary export certificate for U.S. dairy products. 

Pork

The Indian import certificate for pork requires that importers make an attestation that the 

imported  pork  does  not  contain  any  residues  of  pesticides,  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.  

India also limits pork imports to meat derived from animals that were never fed ruminant‐

derived  protein;  requires  attestations  that  are  not  in  accordance  with  international 

requirements;  and  prohibits  imports  of  pork  products  obtained  from  animals  raised 

outside the United States even if they were legally imported into the United States before 

slaughter.  Further, certificates are valid for only six months, and a separate import permit 

must be obtained for each imported lot. 

Animal Health  

Poultry and Swine

Since 2007,  India  has banned imports  of U.S.  poultry,  swine, and  related  products  due  to 

the detection of LPAI in the United States.  India’s ban appears to be inconsistent with OIE 

guidelines, which do not provide for the imposition of trade restrictions based solely on the 

limited presence of LPAI in the exporting country.  The United States has repeatedly raised 

concerns  about  India’s  measures  in  the  WTO  SPS  Committee,  and  has  discussed  these 

concerns  in  a  high‐level  dialogue  with  India  in  the  U.S.‐India  Trade  Policy  Forum.    After 

repeated requests from the United States and other major trading partners for a scientific 

justification  for its  ban,  India provided  supporting material in October 2010.  The United 

States,  other  trading  partners,  and  the  OIE  are  currently  reviewing  this  material.    The 

United  States  will  continue  to  raise  these  concerns  bilaterally  and  multilaterally  and  to 

press India to rescind its measures. 
56 

Although dry processed pet food is exempt from India’s AI ban, Indian officials continue to 

require  AI  certification  statements,  which  do  not  appear  to  be  consistent  with  OIE 

guidelines and have effectively stopped imports of U.S. dry processed pet food. 

See section III.A for a fuller explanation of the AI trade issue. 

Plant Health  

Wheat and Barley

India maintains restrictive standards  for certain plant quarantine pests, such as  for weed 

seeds and ergot, which have blocked U.S. wheat and barley imports.  Bilateral discussions 

to resolve these issues, including at the senior official level, have achieved little success to 

date. 

The United States has raised concerns about  India’s plant health requirements, as well as 

India’s other SPS‐related restrictions mentioned in this report, in bilateral and multilateral 

fora,  including  in  the  Agriculture  Focus  Group  of  the  U.S.‐India  Trade  Policy  Forum,  the 

WTO SPS Committee, and Codex.  Most recently, the United States intensified engagement 

with India on these issues at senior levels of government in advance of President Obama’s 

November 2010 visit to India.  In the course of discussions in these fora, the United States 

proposed,  for example,  that  India and  the United States adopt  specific  health  certificates, 

including the Codex model certificate, attesting that U.S. milk and milk products are safe for 

human consumption.  In a continued effort to re‐open India’s market to U.S. products, the 

United  States  also  developed  alternative  certification  options  for  India’s  consideration.  

Although these discussions have served to narrow the scope of differences in certain areas, 

India continues  to maintain unwarranted SPS‐related restrictions.  The United States will 

continue to make use of all available fora with a view to eliminating those differences and 

securing  the  entry  of  U.S.  dairy,  poultry,  pork,  and  other  agricultural  products  into  the 

Indian market.

INDONESIA

Animal Health

Animal­Derived Products

In October  2009,  Indonesia  announced  Law  18/2009, which  will  require  companies  that 

export  animal‐derived  products  to  Indonesia  to  complete  a  difficult  pre‐registration 

process  with  the  Indonesian  Trade  Ministry  based  on  a  recommendation  from  the 

Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture.  In addition, the law will limit imports of these products 

to  those produced in plants  that  the  Indonesian authorities have individually audited and 

approved.  The law, which could significantly impede U.S. agricultural exports to Indonesia, 

including dairy and eggs, is due  to be implemented in  June 2011.  To date,  Indonesia has 
57 

not notified the WTO of Law 18/2009, nor has it published draft implementing regulations.  

The  United  States  has  raised  concerns  regarding  the  law  with  Indonesian  officials  at 

various  levels  during  the  past  year,  including  during  the  bilateral  Trade  and  Investment 

Framework  Agreement  (TIFA)  meeting  in  September  2010,  and  will  continue  to  work 

towards a resolution of this issue. 

ISRAEL

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Work on an agreement  to allow imports of U.S. live cattle into Israel was suspended after 

the  detection  of  a  BSE  positive  animal  in  the  United  States  in  2003.    Despite  regular 

bilateral  consultations  since  2003,  all  U.S.  live  cattle,  beef,  and  beef  products  remain 

banned. In March 2010, the Israeli Veterinary Services published new draft BSE regulations 

related  to  all  bovine  products,  including  beef  meat,  feeder  cattle,  pet  food,  and  blood 

serums.  In July 2010, U.S. officials submitted technical comments on the draft regulations.  

Israel is currently reviewing the U.S. comments, as well as those submitted by other trading 

partners. The United States continues  to engage  Israel  to  fully open its market  for all live 

cattle, beef, and beef products from the United States based on science, the OIE guidelines, 

and the United States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Animal Health  

Pet Food

Since 2007, Israeli regulations had prohibited the importation of pet food from the United 

States  containing  ruminant  materials.  These  regulations  did  not  appear  to  be  consistent 

with OIE guidelines.  In  July 2010,  the United States and  Israel completed negotiations on 

new requirements  for the export of pet  food  from the United States to Israel, and the ban 

on U.S. pet food products was lifted. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Plant Health  

Cherries  

Israel  bans  imports  of  U.S.  sweet  cherries,  citing  various  plant  pests  and  diseases  of 

concern.  U.S. officials are working with Israel to complete Israel’s risk assessment on sweet 

cherries in an attempt to resolve this longstanding issue, which has blocked U.S. exports for 
58 

nearly  eight  years.    During  technical  bilateral  meetings  in  August  2010,  Israel  agreed  to 

expedite the risk assessment for U.S. sweet cherries.  

Table Grapes  

Israel bans imports of U.S. table grapes citing various plant pests and diseases of concern. 

U.S. officials are working with Israel to complete its risk assessment on table grapes in an 

attempt  to resolve  this long standing issue, which has blocked U.S. exports  for nearly  five 

years.    During  technical  bilateral meetings in  August  2010,  Israel  agreed  to  expedite  the 

risk assessment for U.S. table grapes.

Apples and Pears  

In  March  2009,  Israel’s  Plant  Protection  and  Inspection  Service  in  the  Ministry  of 

Agriculture and Rural Development informed  the United States  that U.S. apples and pears 

would be subject to new cold treatment requirements to mitigate the risks of apple maggot 

and  plum  curculio,  despite  the  fact  that  Israel  has  not  conducted  a  PRA  and  these  pests 

have not been found in shipments from the United States.  Israel granted the United States 

a  temporary  exemption  from  these  requirements  until  June  1,  2010,  and  has  granted  a 

subsequent  exemption  until  June  1,  2011.    The  University  of  Washington  and  Cornell 

University  recently  completed  a  research  project  relating  to  Israel’s  concerns  and  U.S. 

officials are currently preparing a U.S. proposal to present to Israel concerning the removal 

of the new cold treatment requirements.  

JAMAICA

Animal Health  

Pork

Jamaica  currently  bans  imports  of  U.S.  pork  due  to  concerns  about  pseudorabies,  a  viral 

disease  that  can  affect  swine.    The  United  States  has  engaged  Jamaica  on  this  issue  and 

explained  that  this  disease  was  eliminated  from U.S.  commercial  production in  2004.    In 

August  2010,  officials  from  USTR  and  USDA  traveled  to  Kingston to  meet  with  Jamaican 

government officials to discuss this issue.  Jamaican officials visited the United States later 

that month to learn about the U.S. system for protecting animal health.  Jamaica intends to 

conduct  a  risk  assessment  in  response  to  the  U.S.  request  for  pork  market  access.    In 

January 2011, APHIS officials went back to Jamaica for additional consultations.  Although 

efforts  to persuade  Jamaica  to  remove its ban have been unsuccessful  to date,  the United 

States will continue to press Jamaica to open its market for U.S. pork. 
59 

JAPAN

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

In December 2003,  Japan banned U.S. beef and beef products  following  the detection of a 

BSE positive animal in the United States.  In July 2006, Japan partially reopened its market 

to  allow  imports  of  some  U.S.  beef  and  beef  products  from  animals  aged  20  months  or 

younger produced under a special program for Japan.  However, the protocol implementing 

this limited reopening, as well as other border measures taken by Japan, has not proved to 

be commercially viable and has prevented the United States from regaining a level of trade 

that  approaches  historic levels  of exports  to  the  Japanese market.   Before  the  ban,  Japan 

was the largest export market for U.S. beef and beef products, totaling nearly $1.4 billion in 

2003.  The U.S. Government continues to press the Japanese government on this important 

issue  at multiple levels  and  at  every  opportunity,  and is  working  vigorously  to  open  the 

market to U.S. beef and beef products based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United 

States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Frozen French Fries

Japan's  standards  for  microbial  content  on  frozen  foods  are,  in  certain  instances,  overly 

restrictive, particularly  for  foods  that  require cooking before consumption.   For example, 

Japan has occasionally rejected shipments of U.S. frozen French fries, which it classified as a 

finished product, due to the presence of coliform bacteria.  The United States has contended 

that any coliforms detected are minimal and within industry specified limits.  Moreover, the 

French fries will be cooked in oil, eliminating the presence of coliforms, and thus any risk of 

negative health effects. 

As a result of USTR’s requests, Japan has changed the categorization of frozen French fries 

to recognize that frozen French fries are not a significant source of coliform bacteria.  This 

new  categorization  protects  Japanese  consumers,  while  ensuring  that  the  rejection  of 

imported U.S. frozen French fries would only occur for science‐based reasons.  

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 the prolonged approval process for indirect food additives (i.e., additives 

that do not remain on food, such as solvents).  
60 

In 2002, as part of  Japan’s approval process,  Japan created a list of 46  food additives  that 

would  be  subject  to  an  expedited  approval  process.    As  of  March  2011,  six  of  these 

substances  have  yet  to  be  reviewed  or  approved,  notwithstanding  the  availability  of 

extensive  data  on  the  safety  of  these additives.   The U.S. Government  has  urged  Japan  to 

complete its review of the list of food additives and to expedite the review process for food 

additives  generally.    U.S.  officials  may  also  seek  the  addition  of  more  globally‐used 

additives to Japan’s review process. 

In August 2010,  Japan removed 80 additives, which  Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and 

Welfare  (MHLW)  claims  are  not  used  domestically,  from  the  approved  list  of  additives.  

However, some of these additives are still used by industry in products exported to Japan, 

and  the MHLW  has indicated  that it is  open  to  adding  these  additives  back  to  the list  of 

allowed additives after review and confirmation that the particular additives are still in use 

overseas.    The  U.S.  Government  and  industry  have  already  submitted  comments  and 

supplemental information to Japan on this issue.  

Gelatin

Japan bans the importation of U.S.‐origin ruminant gelatin  for human consumption (along 

with  most  other  ruminant  origin  tissues)  due  to  the  December  2003  detection  of  a  BSE 

positive  animal  in  the  United  States.    Although  the  restrictions  on  some  ruminant‐origin 

products have been amended to allow for their importation, there has been no modification 

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  resolve  this  issue  based  on  science,  the  OIE  guidelines,  and  the  United  States’ 

controlled risk status.  

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Post Harvest Fungicide  

Japan’s food safety regulations require a risk assessment for the pre‐harvest application of 

a  fungicide.    However,  Japan  classifies  fungicides  that  are  applied  post‐harvest  as  food 

additives  and  requires  them  to  undergo  an  entirely  independent  risk  assessment.    As  a 

result,  registrants  who  use  a  fungicide  pre‐  and  post‐harvest  must  ensure  that  two  risk 

assessments are performed, which can take as long as five to six years to complete.  These 

requirements  deter  registrants  from  pursuing  approval  for  newer  products.    In  addition, 

Japan  often  delays  initiating  the  second  risk  assessment  until  after  the  first  is  complete.  

Japan’s  dual  risk  assessment  policy  has  not  impacted  domestic  producers,  as  Japanese 

farmers do not routinely apply fungicide after harvest. 

Japan’s  policy  appears  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 
61 

account the manner in which the pesticide is applied, regardless of the time of application 

to the crop.  

Japan  has  indicated  that  it  would  not  be  feasible  in  the  near  future  to  change  the  legal 

statute mandating post‐harvest  fungicides  to be classified as  food additives.  However, in 

May  2010,  Japan  announced  a  decision  to  streamline  the  review  process  for  agricultural 

chemicals  applied  as  pesticides  (pre‐harvest  application)  and  as  food  additives  (post‐

harvest application).   As  of  the  date  of  this  report,  there  has  been no indication  that  this 

streamlining has occurred and, as such, the length and effectiveness of Japan’s new review 

policies remains unclear.  The United States will continue to monitor this process and work 

with Japan to eliminate these costly and burdensome requirements.  

Maximum Residue Limits

Prior  to  2009,  Japan’s  enforcement  of its MRLs  could  subject  all  exports  of  a  commodity 

from a particular country  to increased  testing based on MRL violations incurred by other 

exporters of that commodity from the same exporting country.  Under its previous policy, 

MHLW increased testing after a single violation to 30 percent of the particular agricultural 

commodity originating  from  the country in question, even  for growers/shippers  that had 

no  history  of  violations.    If  a  second  violation  occurred  within  12  months  of  the  first 

violation for the same commodity and country, MHLW imposed a 100 percent test and hold 

requirement on all shipments of the commodity from the exporting country. 

In  July  2009,  the  United  States  and  Japan  concluded  an  MOU  that  addressed  certain 

concerns of the United States.  Under the MOU, in the event there is an MRL violation with 

regard to a U.S. horticultural product where the U.S. MRL is equal to or more stringent than 

Japan’s MRL,  Japan will take action only against the producer, exporter, or shipper whose 

product has violated the MRL.  Where there has been an MRL violation with regard to a U.S. 

horticultural  product  where  the  U.S.  MRL  is  less  stringent  than  Japan’s  MRL,  the  MOU 

provides  that  Japan may  take action against  the  violator, but not  the whole U.S. industry, 

unless there is sufficient evidence of an industry‐wide concern.  Notwithstanding the MOU, 

however, there continue to be serious concerns about the amount of time it takes Japan to 

establish  permanent,  science‐based MRLs,  Japan’s  temporary imposition  of  unreasonably 

low default MRLs until permanent MRLs are established, and Japan’s enforcement practices 

where the U.S. MRL is less restrictive than Japan’s MRL.  

See section III.D for an explanation of the MRL trade issue. 

Rice

Japan’s  rice import  regime limits  the  competitiveness  of U.S.  rice in  the  Japanese market 

through a number of measures, including excessive testing requirements.  The MHLW tests 

imported rice at the port of arrival for hundreds of chemicals.  In addition, the Ministry of 

Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries  (MAFF), as  the  rice importer of  record, also  tests 100 

percent of the rice it purchases at the pre‐loading and loading stages to comply with food 
62 

safety  regulations.    These  tests  are  mandatory  and  paid  for  by  MAFF.    However,  as  the 

importer  of  record,  MAFF  can,  at  its  option,  require  an  additional  test  for  shipment 

insurance  purposes.    Although  technically  optional,  MAFF  is  the  only  legal  buyer  of 

imported rice and always requires the insurance test, effectively making it mandatory.  The 

requirement  that  such  a  large  number  of  chemicals  be  tested  and  the  number  of  times 

these tests must be performed during the import process do not appear to be based on risk.  

The  United  States  will  continue  to  urge  Japan  to  streamline  these  apparently  excessive 

testing requirements. 

Animal Health  

Poultry

U.S. poultry and poultry products, including egg products, are currently exported to Japan 

in  accordance  with  a  2002  animal  health  protocol.    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.  The United States continues  to press  Japan  to 

agree to an OIE‐consistent revised protocol. 

See section III.A for an explanation of the AI trade issue. 

Plant Health  

Fresh and Chipping Potatoes

On  February 1, 2006, MAFF and USDA  reached an agreement  to allow limited imports of 

U.S.  fresh  potatoes  to  produce  potato  chips.    Prior  to  that  date,  Japan  had  banned  all 

imports of fresh potatoes from the United States due to phytosanitary concerns.  Under this 

agreement,  14  U.S.  states  were  allowed  access  to  the  Japanese  market  during  specific 

months  (February  through  June  of  each  year).    The  States  of  Idaho,  Arizona,  Wisconsin, 

Oregon,  California,  Colorado,  Texas,  New  Mexico,  North  Dakota,  Florida,  Michigan, 

Minnesota,  Maine,  and  Washington  were  approved  to  participate  in  this  program.  

However,  in  April  2006,  after  Idaho  announced  a  potato  cyst  nematode  finding,  Japan 

banned imports of all U.S. fresh potatoes.  In February 2007, the U.S. regained access for all 

previously approved states except  Idaho.  Currently, only one port‐area  facility is allowed 

to process U.S. fresh potatoes under MAFF’s strict surveillance.  Through negotiations with 

Japan, the United States has continued to seek the reinstatement of Idaho, to secure access 

to additional port facilities, and, most recently, to extend the shipping period from January 

to July instead of from February to June. 

Requirements on New Cherry Varieties

Japan  only  approves  imports  of  new  fresh  cherry  varieties  based  on  an  individual 

fumigation  trial.    This  burdensome  process,  which  involves  testing  the  application  of 

pesticides  for  each  separate  variety,  restricts  the  entry  of  new  varieties  of  cherries.    The 
63 

United States is urging  Japan to accept  fresh sweet cherries as a single commodity, which 

would mean that all varieties may be imported without the need for separate testing. 

Access for Non­Fumigated Cherries   

Since  the commonly‐used methyl bromide  fumigations on  fresh cherries cause significant 

damage  to  the  quality  of  the  fruit  and  shorten  the  product’s  shelf  life,  the  U.S.  industry, 

USDA,  and  the  government  of  Japan  began  discussing  the  possibility  of  implementing  a 

plant  health  protocol  under  which  Japan  would  no  longer  require  methyl‐bromide 

fumigation  for  U.S.  fresh  cherries.    In  2009,  the  United  States  and  Japan  reached  an 

agreement on a protocol allowing  the Pacific Northwest region (Washington and Oregon) 

to ship fresh cherries to Japan without fumigation.  The region’s successful implementation 

of this protocol is now in its second year.  In 2010, the United States and Japan finalized a 

similar  protocol  for  California.    U.S.  officials  are  currently  working  with  their  Japanese 

counterparts to incorporate Idaho into the current Pacific Northwest protocol. 

KAZAKHSTAN

Systemic Issues

General

The  entry  into  force  of  the  Customs  Union  of  Russia,  Kazakhstan,  and  Belarus  (the 

“Customs Union” or CU) has complicated trade into and among the three countries, as they 

harmonize and revise their SPS measures.  Traders and even customs officials at the border 

are  often  unsure  about  the  new  requirements  and,  as  a  result,  customs  officials  often 

appear to indiscriminately choose which requirements to apply. 

Kazakhstan  signed  the  Agreement  of  the  Customs  Union  on  Sanitary  Measures  and  the 

Agreement  of  the  Customs Union  on  Veterinary  and Sanitary Measures  on December  11, 

2009.    Since  April  2010,  Russia,  Belarus,  and  Kazakhstan  have  concluded  a  number  of 

additional agreements  that  harmonize SPS measures.    These  agreements  unify  the list  of 

goods  subject  to  veterinary,  phytosanitary,  and  sanitary‐epidemiological  control  at  the 

customs  border  and  within  the  territory  of  the  CU,  unify  the  veterinary  and  sanitary‐

epidemiological  and  hygienic  requirements  on  those  goods,  and  unify  the  form  of 

documentation confirming  the safety of  those goods.  On  July 1, 2010,  the Customs Union 

implemented  harmonized  veterinary  requirements,  which  stipulate  that  imports  for  all 

veterinary  controlled  products  are  eligible  for  entry  only  if  they  are  from  facilities  on  a 

common list  approved  by  all  three  Customs  Union  parties.    These  various  SPS measures 

have the potential to restrain U.S. exports. 

Among  the  CU’s  additional  SPS  measures,  Kazakhstan  now  requires  a  mandatory  “state 

registration” for the production and importation of certain types of goods.  Any importer or 

producer of these goods must obtain a Certificate of State Registration from the country of 

origin before the product can be sold.  In Kazakhstan, the Committee of State Sanitary and 
64 

Epidemiological  Supervision  under  the  Ministry  of  Health  will  issue  such  certificates.  

Goods subject to this certification include: 

 mineral water, drinking water in bottles, tonic water, alcoholic beverages; 

 specialized food products produced with genetically‐modified microorganisms; 

 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).          

The  U.S.  Government  continues  to  engage  with  Kazakhstan  as  to  the  basis  of  these 

restrictions and to ensure that implementation of these measures are not trade disruptive. 

Veterinary Certificates

After over a year of negotiations, USTR and USDA successfully completed negotiations with 

Kazakhstan of veterinary certificates governing  trade in beef, poultry, pork, egg products, 

sheep and goat meat, and dairy and dairy products.  However, the implementation of these 

certificates has not been completed.  These certificates are only valid  through 2011; after 

that  point,  Kazakhstan  will  implement  a  harmonized  Customs  Union  certificate  that  is 

currently  being  developed.    The  U.S.  Government  continues  to  work  with  Kazakhstan  to 

ensure that trade will not be disrupted during the transition to Customs Union certificates. 

Biotechnology   

Kazakhstan currently is considering a draft law to regulate the development and testing of 

biotechnology products in Kazakhstan.  While the current draft law provides for the review 

and registration of biotech events for import and cultivation in Kazakhstan, it also includes 

rigid  timelines  for  notification  and  supplementary  data  submissions.    The  draft  law  also 

lacks  clarity  with  respect  to  liability  and  the  protection  of  confidential  business 

information,  and  establishes  a  ban  on  all  biotech ingredients in  baby  food,  even in  cases 

where those products have been proven safe.  The United States has raised concerns with 

these  issues  and  has  also  urged  Kazakhstan  to  consider  an  interim  system  for  biotech 

approvals to address the products currently in commerce and to avoid trade disruption as 

Kazakhstan transitions to implementation of the draft law.   

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue.
65 

KUWAIT

Animal Health  

Poultry

Kuwait bans imports of live fowl, hatching eggs, and one‐day old chicks from Kentucky and 

Minnesota  due  to  concerns  about  the  detection  of  LPAI  in  those  states.    This  restriction 

does not appear to be consistent with relevant OIE guidelines, which do not allow  for  the 

imposition of trade restrictions for LPAI.  U.S. officials have raised this issue with officials in 

Kuwait and will continue to press them to resolve this matter. 

See section III.A for an explanation of the AI trade issue. 

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 to reopen its market when it announced that it would accept imports of 

U.S.  deboned  beef  from  cattle less  than  30 months  of  age.    Subsequently, Mexico  further 

opened its market to bone‐in beef and beef products from animals less than 30 months of 

age.    In  October  2008,  the  United  States  and  Mexico  reached  an  agreement  allowing 

imports into Mexico of U.S. breeding cattle born after 1999.

Mexico  currently allows  the importation  of U.S.  beef  (deboned and  bone‐in) and  selected 

beef  products  (further  processed  products,  tripe,  trimmings,  hearts,  kidneys,  lips, 

diaphragms, tongue, and cheek meat) derived from animals less than 30 months of age.  All 

other  products  derived  from  cattle  of  all  ages,  including  ground  beef,  as  well  as  live 

breeding cattle of all ages, are banned. 

In August 2010, the United States hosted a Mexican technical team to perform a verification 

visit  to  review  the efficacy  of U.S. BSE‐related  safeguard measures.   Mexico informed  the 

United States  that its risk assessment, including results  from this verification visit, would 

be  completed  by December  2010.    The  United  States  raised  concerns  regarding Mexico’s 

current restrictions at  the October U.S.‐Mexico Consultative Committee on Agriculture, as 

well as during high‐level bilateral discussions in December 2010 and January 2011.  As of 

mid‐March 2011, the United States has not received the results of the risk assessment from 

Mexico  which  would  form  the  basis  of  the  next  discussions  on  access  for  beef  and  beef 

products based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ controlled risk status.

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 
66 

Pork

The United States exports fresh chilled meats for processing to Mexico in “combo bins” or 

“combos”  at  the  request  of  the  Mexican  meat  processing  sector.    Combos  are  large, 

plastic‐lined, palletized cardboard boxes  that contain a single meat product  from a single 

establishment.  As a result of U.S. engagement, Mexico has delayed  the implementation of 

an intrusive 100 percent  testing system  for combos at  the border until  the publication of 

new implementing animal health law regulations  for combo import inspection.  However, 

due  to  the  legal  requirement  for  100  percent  testing  as  well  as  other  issues  involving 

combos, Mexico has yet to develop a risk‐based inspection system that is not unnecessarily 

burdensome to trade.  Uncertainty surrounding the nature of a new inspection system, as 

well as its date of implementation, have been causes of concern among U.S. meat exporters.

Plant Health  

Stone Fruit

U.S.  peach,  nectarine,  and  apricot  growers  are  encountering  problems  with  respect  to 

Mexico’s approach to controlling oriental fruit moth and a number of other pests.  

California

  

Under the California Stone Fruit Workplan, Mexico requires a high level of oversight 

through a large number of inspectors, paid for by the California stone fruit industry, 

in order to allow market access to Mexico.  USDA continues to hold discussions with 

Mexico to reduce both the oversight in the United States by Mexican inspectors and 

oversight in Mexico by U.S. inspectors.  A draft protocol that would reduce oversight 

requirements is under discussion.  

Georgia and South Carolina

In 2008, USDA requested access to Mexico’s market for stone fruit from Georgia and 

South  Carolina.   Mexico agreed  to  complete a  PRA in  order  to  review  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 

modified version of the California Stone Fruit Workplan.  Although the work plan is 

more  stringent  and  expensive  than  necessary  due  to  the  extensive  oversight 

required  by  Mexico,  it  will  allow  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  to  begin  shipping  to 

Mexico, likely in June 2011. 
67 

Pacific Northwest  

USDA  is  awaiting  a  PRA  from  Mexico  to  address  a  request  for  market  access  for 

peaches  from  the  Pacific Northwest.   Mexico  has  noted  that in  the  absence  of  the 

PRA,  these  peaches  would  require  oversight  similar  to  California,  although 

producers  are  concerned  that  due  to  the  low  risk  associated  with  the  region,  any 

export  program  should  require minimal  oversight.   Mexico  has  stated  that  a  draft 

PRA will be completed in June 2011.  USDA is continuing technical discussions with 

Mexico on this issue. 

Potatoes

Mexico  continues  to  prohibit  the  shipment  of  U.S.  fresh  potatoes  beyond  a  26  kilometer 

zone along the U.S. and Mexico border.  Although the two countries reached an agreement 

in 2003 that provided a road map to allow U.S. potatoes access to the whole of Mexico over 

a  three‐year  period,  Mexico  has  been  slow  to  implement  the  agreement.    More  recently, 

Mexico has advised that it will modify the existing potato regulation as part of a technical 

administrative  process  that  could  take  several  years  to  complete.    At  the  same  time, 

however, Mexico informed  the  United  States  that it  will  convene  technical‐level  bilateral 

discussions during the pendency of that process.   

The United States and Mexico have held several  technical meetings on  the issue, and U.S. 

officials also raised the issue at the U.S.‐Mexico Consultative Committee on Agriculture  in 

October  2010.   USDA  sent a  risk mitigation  proposal  to Mexico in early November  2010, 

and  the  United  States  again  raised  the  issue  on  the  margins  of the  NAFTA  Sanitary  and 

Phytosanitary  Committee meeting later that month.  Technical discussions were again held 

in early December 2010.  On December 10, 2010, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack 

and  Mexican  Secretary  of  Agriculture  Francisco  Mayorga  agreed  to  explore  alternative 

approaches  to resolve  this issue, including  third‐party mediation.  Since  then, Mexico and 

the  United  States  have  agreed  to  resolve  this  issue  under  the  auspices  of  the  North 

American Plant Protection Organization and have initiated the mediation process. 

MOROCCO

Food Safety and Animal Health

Morocco restricts imports of U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products due concerns over BSE 

and growth hormones, and poultry and poultry products due to AI and Salmonella‐related 

issues.    Morocco  and  the  United  States  are  working  to  reach  agreement  on  sanitary 

certificates  that are  consistent with international  standards  to accompany U.S. exports  of 

such products to Morocco. 
68 

See  section  III.C  for  an  explanation  of  the  BSE  trade  issue  and  see  section  III.A  for  an 

explanation of the AI trade issue. 

NEW ZEALAND  

Animal Health  

Pork

New Zealand restricts imports of U.S. pork to consumer‐ready high value cuts and pork for 

further  processing  due  to  concern  about  PRRS  and  PMWS.    In  April  2009,  after  several 

years  of  consultation  and  analysis,  New  Zealand  issued  four  provisional  import  health 

standards for pig meat, pig meat products, and by‐products from the United States, Canada, 

the EU, and Mexico.  If approved, the provisional standards will allow for the importation of 

high‐value,  consumer‐ready  cuts of  uncooked  pork  from  countries  not  considered  free  of 

PRRS.  However, these provisional standards are not yet approved.   

Later  in  2009,  New  Zealand  established  an  independent  panel  to  review  the  provisional 

import  health  standards.    The  panel  completed  its  review  in  April  2010  and  submitted 

recommendations.  New Zealand then convened an expert working group in October 2010 

to  review  the  risk  assessment  model  in  relation  to  PRRS.    New  Zealand  currently  is 

reviewing the expert working group’s findings.  The United States continues to engage with 

New Zealand on this issue. 

Plant Health  

Stone Fruit

In 2006, the United States requested New Zealand to expand its import health standard for 

California  stone  fruit  to  include  fruit  from  the  Pacific  Northwest.    New  Zealand  issued  a 

draft PRA in March 2009.  The United States and New Zealand have consulted extensively 

on  this draft PRA since  then, including in October 2010.  The Ministry of Agriculture and 

Forestry  has  nearly  completed  consultations  with  domestic  and  U.S.  stakeholders  and  is 

expected  to  issue  a  final  risk  assessment  in  2011.    The  next  stage  of  the  process  is  the 

development of an import health standard, which is expected to be completed in 2011.   

NICARAGUA  

Food Safety

Poultry

In 2008, CACM member countries, including Nicaragua, notified the WTO of their intent to 

establish microbiological criteria  for a number  of  foods, including a zero  tolerance policy 

for Salmonella on poultry meat.  The United States has informed CACM members that a zero 
69 

tolerance  for Salmonella on poultry meat is unwarranted because it is generally accepted 

by food safety experts and scientists that pathogens cannot be entirely eliminated from raw 

meat, and that proper storage, handling, and cooking of raw meat reduce significantly the 

risk of a number of food‐borne diseases caused by these microbes.   

After  reviewing  the  U.S.  comments  on  this  proposal,  CACM  members  decided  that  each 

country would determine its own country‐specific standard for Salmonella in raw poultry.  

In  September  2010,  U.S.  officials  met  with  Central  American  government  authorities  to 

further discuss this issue.  Nicaragua indicated it is reviewing the current regulations and 

any  changes  will  be  notified  to  the WTO.    The  United  States  will  continue  to  work  with 

government  officials in Nicaragua and  the  other  CACM member  countries  to address U.S. 

concerns regarding the zero tolerance Salmonella policy. 

NORWAY  

Biotechnology

Since  1996,  Norway  has  adopted  policies  that  effectively  ban  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 biotechnology trade issue. 

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Norway  implements  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

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.  Until April 2010, Peru and 

the  other  three  CAN member  countries  (Bolivia,  Ecuador, and  Colombia)  had 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 which stipulated that only live animals under 24 months of age could be imported.  
70 

CAN  Resolution  1314,  published  April    2010,  stipulated  that  all  CAN  member  countries 

would be able to elaborate their own requirements regarding the importation of live cattle 

from the United States in accordance with the CAN risk assessment. 

The U.S. Government continues to engage with Peru to re‐open its market for U.S. live cattle 

based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

PHILIPPINES

Plant Health

Quarantine Clearance

The  Philippine Department  of Agriculture  now  requires a  plant  quarantine  certificate  for 

processed plant products (e.g., frozen French fries and raisins).  This requirement appears 

to be duplicative because existing Philippine Food and Drug Administration requirements 

appear  to  already  address  the  safety  issues  associated  with  these  products.    The  United 

States continues to engage with the Philippines on this issue. 

Market Access for U.S. Vegetables

The United States is concerned with the timeliness with which the Philippines is producing 

PRAs  for  fresh  fruits  and  vegetables.    Since  2006,  the United  States  has  been waiting  for 

PRAs  for  broccoli,  cauliflower,  lettuce,  carrots,  cabbage,  celery,  and,  more  recently,  fresh 

potatoes.   Until  these  PRAs  are  completed,  the  Philippine Department  of Agriculture will 

only allow limited amounts of these vegetables to enter the country on a case‐by‐case basis 

for “high‐end markets,” such as hotels, restaurants, and airline companies.  In addition, the 

Philippines only allows the entry of U.S. fresh potatoes that will be processed into chips and 

other food products.  The Philippines has promised to issue PRAs for the vegetables noted 

above in the first half of 2011.  

Food Safety

Frozen and Chilled Meat and Meat Products

In  December  2010,  the  Philippines  implemented  Administrative  Order  (A.O.)  22,  which 

established  rules  and  regulations  for  the  handling  of  frozen  and  chilled  meat  and  meat 

products.  A.O. 22 imposes refrigeration requirements on frozen and chilled meat and meat 

products, as well as burdensome and ambiguous packaging and traceability requirements.  

Similar  regulations  do  not  apply  to  fresh  meat  and  meat  products  despite  similar  food 

safety‐related  issues.    A.O.  22  disproportionately  affects  imported  products  because  the 

vast  majority  of  frozen  meat  sold  in  the  Philippines  is  imported.    The  United  States  has 

raised its concerns with A.O. 22 on numerous occasions, including at bilateral meetings and 
71 

in  high‐level  correspondence,  and  will  continue  to  work  with  Philippine  authorities  to 

resolve this issue.   

RUSSIA  

Systemic Issues

Russia’s  SPS  standards  provide  extremely  prescriptive  requirements  for  facilities  and 

production  processes.    Russia  has  attempted  to  impose  these  requirements  on  trading 

partners  by  accepting  imports  only  from  facilities  that  are  certified  as  complying  with 

Russian  requirements.    Russian  resolutions  directing  that  international  standards, 

guidelines,  and  recommendations  of  the  OIE  and  the  IPPC  be  respected  should  prove 

helpful, but in practice it is not clear that Russia always follows international standards or 

provides justifications for departing from them.  Overall, Russia’s application of apparently 

unwarranted SPS measures has had a significant negative effect on U.S. exports.   

The entry into  force of  the Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus has  further 

complicated  these  matters.    As  the  three  countries  harmonize  and  revise  their  SPS 

measures,  traders and border officials are often unsure about  the new requirements, and 

customs  officials  sometimes  indiscriminately  choose  which  requirements  to  apply.    On 

December 11, 2009, Russia signed both  the Agreement of  the Customs Union on Sanitary 

Measures and the Agreement of the Customs Union on Veterinary and Sanitary Measures.  

In addition, Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan have concluded a number of other agreements 

that also seek to harmonize SPS measures.  These agreements unify the list of goods subject 

to  veterinary,  phytosanitary,  and  sanitary‐epidemiological  control  by  the  CU  Parties 

(whether the goods are imported from outside the CU or from one of the other CU Parties), 

unify  the  veterinary  and  sanitary‐epidemiological  and  hygienic  requirements  on  those 

goods, and unify  the  form of documentation confirming  the safety of  those goods.  At  the 

same time, however, Russia’s SPS measures also continue to apply to imported goods.  On 

July 1, 2010, the Customs Union implemented harmonized veterinary requirements which 

stipulate, inter alia, that imports subject to veterinary control may be imported only  from 

facilities on a common list approved by all three CU Parties.  These various SPS measures 

have the potential to restrain U.S. exports. 

U.S. exporters also face systemic issues in Russia related to the certification of agricultural 

products.    For  example,  Russia  requires  phytosanitary  certificates  for  shipments  of 

processed products such as soybean proteins, corn gluten, and distiller’s grains, which, due 

to  the  nature  of  the  processing  process,  do  not  present  a  pest  risk.    Consequently,  such 

products do not require a phytosanitary certification from the U.S. Government.  Likewise, 

Russia requests certification that the United States is free from various livestock diseases, 

even  where  there  is  no  risk  of  transmission  from  the  product  in  question.    Several 

requirements  of  various  certificates  are  unattainable  or  involve  information  that  is  not 

available to U.S. officials.  For example, with regard to export certificates for milk and milk 

products,  Russia  has asked  for U.S.  Government  verification  of the Russian  port  of  entry, 

identification  marks,  and  the  absence  of  Salmonella  and  other  bacterial  disease  agents.  
72 

Additionally,  to date,  the United States has not  yet  received  scientific justification and/or 

risk assessments for many of these requirements. 

In  November  2006,  the  United  States  and  Russia  signed  bilateral  agreements  to  address 

SPS issues related to:  trade in pork; trade in beef and beef by‐products; trade in products 

of  agricultural  biotechnology;  and  the  certification  of  pork  and  poultry  facilities  for 

exporting  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 plant inspection  for meat and poultry  facilities, Russia agreed  to grant U.S. 

regulatory  officials  the  authority  to  certify  new  U.S.  facilities  and/or  facilities  that  had 

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.    At  present, 

however,  Russia’s  officials  question  the  reliability  of  the  current  inspection  and 

certification system for U.S. meat and poultry facilities that are eligible to export to Russia 

and have sometimes refused to re‐list facilities that U.S. regulatory officials have inspected.  

The U.S. Government continues to discuss this issue with Russia’s veterinary service. 

Biotechnology

Although Russia has established a system for the approval of biotechnology food and feed 

products, the United States continues to have concerns with the implementation of Russia’s 

biosafety  system,  including  its  requirements  for  re‐registration  of  approved  products, 

labeling  of  genetically  engineered  products,  and  the  lack  of  an  approval  system  for  the 

cultivation  of  biotechnology  crops.    The  United  States  is  pursuing  these  concerns  and 

greater  cooperation  on  biotechnology  with  Russia  through  the  U.S.‐Russia  Biotechnology 

Consultative Mechanism. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

Food Safety

Poultry

On  January  1,  2010,  Russia  banned  the importation  and  sale  of  chlorine‐treated  chicken, 

essentially halting all imports of U.S. poultry into Russia.  Bilateral negotiations led to the 

resumption  of  poultry imports in  September  2010,  but  they  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.  In addition, the Russian government has adopted a 

resolution that bans the importation and sale of poultry that has been frozen for more than 

three months and is destined for further processing into food intended for use in baby food 

and special diets.  Russia has not yet provided  the United States with risk assessments  to 

support these regulations.  
73 

Russia  also  maintains  a  zero  tolerance  policy  for  Salmonella  and  other  bacterial  disease 

pathogens, as well as for residues of many veterinary drugs commonly used in U.S. poultry 

production.    Even  after  imports  of  U.S.  poultry  resumed  in  September  2010,  Russia 

restricted  imports  of  some  shipments  of  U.S.  poultry  after  finding  Salmonella.    These 

requirements have also led to multiple restrictions of U.S. poultry facilities.   

U.S.  trade  and  agricultural  officials  have  discussed  these  issues  extensively  with  their 

Russian  counterparts,  urging  them  to  adopt  SPS  measures  that  are  consistent  with 

international standards of the OIE and Codex.    

Pork and Pork Products

Russia maintains MRLs  that are more  stringent  than  the  recommended  Codex  standards, 

including  many  that  are  at  or  near  zero  tolerance  levels,  such  as  for  tetracycline‐group 

antibiotics, but has thus far not provided to the United States risk assessments to support 

these  more  stringent  standards.   Russia  continues  to  restrict  imports  from  U.S.  facilities 

based  on  findings  of  tetracycline‐group  antibiotics.    Unless  changed,  these  requirements 

will continue to constitute major barriers  to U.S. exports.  The U.S. Government continues 

to  press  Russia  to  adopt  standards  that  are  based  on  science  and  consistent  with 

international standards. 

Beef and Beef Products

Currently, U.S. producers may export boneless and bone‐in beef to Russia from cattle under 

the  age  of  30  months  and  that  otherwise  meet  requirements  set  out  in  the  U.S.‐Russia 

Bilateral Agreement on Trade in Beef.  The United States and Russia continue to negotiate a 

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 from facilities that have been inspected and certified for 

export to Russia.   

Current BSE attestations in Russia’s sanitary certificate for prepared meat preclude any U.S. 

cooked beef from eligibility for export to Russia.  Russia also maintains a ban on imports of 

ground beef from cattle of any age.  The United States will continue to press Russia to open 

its  market  to  U.S.  beef  and  beef  products  based  on  science,  the  OIE  guidelines,  and  the 

United States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Dairy

Russia  requests  that  all  health  certificates,  including  those  for  dairy  products,  provide 

broad  statements  that  the  products  meet  Russia’s  sanitary  and  veterinary  rules  and 

requirements  for  chemical,  microbiological,  and  radiological  indicators.    Many  of  these 

requirements  appear  unwarranted.    In  addition,  Russia  requests  a  list  of  exporters  that 

meet Russia’s requirements and which would be subject to audit by Russian veterinarians.  
74 

During  meetings  in  January  2010,  Russian  authorities  stated  that  without  such  a  list  by 

February  15,  they  would  halt  dairy  imports  from  the  United  States.    Dairy  shipments 

continued through September 2010, but ceased when Rosselkhoznadzor (Russia’s Federal 

Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance) instructed customs officials to allow 

shipments  only  from  exporters  on  Rosselkhoznadzor‐approved  lists.    At  the  same  time, 

Rosselkhoznadzor  requested  that  the  United  States  stop  signing  the  dairy  certificates 

previously issued for export because they were not compliant with Russian requirements.  

The U.S. Government continues to work with Russian officials to reopen the market to U.S. 

dairy products. 

Animal Health

Grains and Oilseeds

Exports  to  Russia  of  U.S.  grain  and  oilseed  products  are  severely limited  due  to  Russia’s 

requirement  for  veterinary  certificates  for  many  grains  and  seeds  certifying  that  these 

plant  products  are  free  of  animal  diseases.    The  United  States  maintains  that  this 

certification is unnecessary because these products do not pose any animal health risks.  As 

a result, to date, the United States has not agreed to provide certificates for fodder grains, 

soybeans,  soybean meal,  and  animal  feeds  of  plant  origin,  and Russia  permits imports  of 

these products only on a case‐by‐case basis.   

Pet Food

Russia does not allow  the importation of pet  food containing U.S. beef due  to alleged BSE 

concerns.    For  those  imports  that  are  allowed,  Russia  requires  apparently  unwarranted 

heat treatment processing procedures (in addition to microbial testing).  

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

SAUDI ARABIA  

Food Safety

See discussion of Gulf Cooperation Council food safety requirements. 

SINGAPORE

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Due to BSE concerns, Singapore prohibits the importation of all U.S. beef and beef products, 

except for deboned beef from animals under 30 months of age.  For the past several years, 

Singapore  has  informed  the  United  States  that  it  is  in  the  process  of  performing  a  risk 
75 

assessment of U.S. beef and beef products.  The United States continues to press Singapore 

to  complete  this  risk  assessment  and  to  open  its  market  based  on  science,  the  OIE 

guidelines, and the United States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

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 it 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 is engaging with South Africa 

to  open  fully  its  beef  market  to  U.S.  beef  and  beef  products  based  on  science,  the  OIE 

guidelines, and the United States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Animal Health  

Pork

South Africa currently maintains a 20‐day freezing requirement on U.S. pork to prevent the 

transmission of pseudorabies.  The risk of transmission of pseudorabies to domestic herds 

through imported U.S. pork is extremely low.  In 1989, the United States started a voluntary 

eradication  program  for  pseudorabies  and,  in  2004,  the  United  States  achieved  the 

successful  eradication  in  commercial  herds  through  all  50  states.    The  U.S.  Government 

continues  to  work  with  South  Africa  to  address  the  current  freezing  requirement  for 

pseudorabies.   

SOUTH AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY  

Biotechnology

The South African Development Community (SADC) members, with the exception of South 

Africa,  have  banned  the  importation  of  agricultural  biotechnology  products  since  2005.5

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 biotechnology‐derived varieties can 

be  imported  for  food  aid,  but  it  must  be  milled  or  sterilized  so  as  to  render  the  grain 

                                                           

5 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.  
76 

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 countries.  The United States 

will continue to engage the SADC on these issues. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

SOUTH KOREA  

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

In April  2008,  the United  States  and Korea  signed  an  agreement to  re‐open  fully Korea’s 

market to U.S. beef and beef products in a manner consistent with international standards 

and  science.    In  June  2008,  following  massive  public  protests  in  Seoul,  Korean  beef 

importers  and  U.S.  exporters  reached  a  voluntary,  commercial  understanding  that 

temporarily limits U.S. exports to beef and beef products from cattle less than 30 months of 

age, as a transitional measure, until Korean consumer confidence improves.  U.S. beef sales 

resumed in  June 2008.   In 2010, U.S. exports of beef and beef products  to Korea  reached 

nearly  113,000 metric  tons,  valued  at  $518 million, making  Korea  the  fourth largest U.S. 

beef export market.  This represents a 140 percent increase by value over 2009 sales. 

Achieving full market access for U.S. beef and beef products exports to Korea remains a top 

priority.  The U.S. Government will continue to attach importance to the beef issue and will 

continue  to urge Korea  to open its market  fully based on science,  the OIE guidelines, and 

the United States’ controlled risk status.   

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Maximum Residue Limits

In June 2009, Korea notified the WTO that it would eliminate its existing MRLs for certain 

pesticides if those pesticides are not registered for domestic use in Korea.  This elimination 

would include even those MRLs that have been established as safe following a scientific risk 

assessment.  The United States is concerned that once Korea’s proposal is implemented, it 

will  block  the importation  of  certain  products  treated  with  U.S.‐approved  pesticides  that 

are  not  registered  in  Korea.    Without  an  established  MRL  in  Korea,  any  trace  of  the 

pesticide in  question would preclude exports  of  the product  to Korea.  The United States 

will continue to encourage Korea to maintain the current list of import MRLs, based on the 

most  current  available  scientific  data,  or  until  Korea  completes  the  appropriate  risk 

assessments.    The  United  States  will  also  continue  to  seek  guidance  from  Korea  on  how 

exporters  and  governments  with  objections  regarding  acceptable  MRLs  may  submit 

relevant information and requests for import tolerances. 
77 

In  June  2010,  Korea’s  Food  and  Drug  Administration  (KFDA)  imposed  a  100  percent 

inspection  policy  on  all  imports  of  U.S.  cherries  as  a  result  of  a  reported  pesticide  MRL 

violation on a shipment of California cherries to Taiwan.  This inspection policy has caused 

a significant disruption for U.S. cherry exports.  In response to concerns raised by the U.S. 

Government,  KFDA  implemented  a  two‐month  sampling  and  testing  protocol  in  August 

2010 for a variety of domestically produced and imported fresh fruits and vegetables.  This 

data collection exercise, while still somewhat burdensome, was much less problematic than 

the 100 percent inspection policy and, ultimately, has not resulted in the detention of any 

U.S. horticultural exports.   

The United States continues  to work with Korea  to resolve issues related  to Korea’s MRL 

enforcement policies.  

See section III.D for an explanation of the MRL trade issue. 

Plant Health  

Cherries

Korea  requires  that  exports  of  U.S.  cherries  undergo  fumigation  with  methyl  bromide 

before  shipping in  order  to  control  various  pests  of  quarantine  concern.   Removal  of  the 

fumigation requirement will increase shelf life and allow cherries to be shipped via ocean 

vessel  rather  than air  freight,  thus  reducing costs.  Lower costs combined with improved 

fruit quality should help increase sales.  The United States has been engaged with Korean 

quarantine officials since 2008 to address this issue and will continue to work with Korea 

to find an alternative approach to methyl bromide fumigation. 

Biotechnology

Korea’s  regulatory  system  for  biotechnology  has  generated  concern  in  recent  years  with 

regard  to  its  level  of  predictability  and  transparency.    In  2008,  Korea  implemented  the 

Living  Modified  Organisms  Act  (LMO  Act),  which  regulates  trade  in  agricultural  biotech 

products.  The United States has raised a number of issues related to the LMO Act and its 

implementation,  including  concerns  that  certain  import  documentation  requirements  go 

beyond the current provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.  The United States is 

also concerned about Korea’s definition  for  “adventitious presence,” as well as aspects  of 

Korea’s risk assessment review, which may lead to delays in new product approvals.  The 

United States has noted that the LMO Act, while nominally applying to all LMOs, has been 

written solely with LM plants in mind and thus does not readily apply to the transboundary 

movement  of  LM  animals.    The  U.S.  and  Korean  governments  are  working  together  to 

address  these  concerns  and  have  made  some  progress,  including  the  establishment  of  a 

mechanism  for  regular  communication  between  technology  developers  and  Korean 

regulatory agencies during the review process.  
78 

With respect to biotech approvals, Korea approved five single trait biotech events and five 

multi‐trait biotech events in the fall of 2010, but U.S. concerns with regard to predictability 

in the review process and the LMO Act will require continued U.S. engagement with Korea 

to avoid significant disruptions in U.S. exports. 

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

SRI LANKA

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Sri  Lanka  continues  to  ban  all  imports  of  U.S.  beef  and  beef  products  as  a  result  of  the 

detection  of  a  BSE  positive  animal  in  2003  in  the  United  States.    The  United  States 

continues  to engage with Sri Lanka  to open its market  for all U.S. beef and beef products 

based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Microbiological Testing of Meat Imports

In September 2009, Sri Lanka started 100 percent testing of all imported meat products for 

various  pathogens.    Importers  have  complained  that  the  additional  demurrage  costs 

associated with the testing are unnecessary, and that the government testing methods are 

unsound.    During  the  October  2009  TIFA  meeting,  the  United  States  requested  that  Sri 

Lanka  provide  its  regulations  on  microbiological  testing,  especially  those  relating  to  the 

testing protocol, targeted pathogens, and acceptable pathogen levels. 

Biotechnology

Sri  Lanka  currently  prohibits  the  sale  of  biotechnology  seeds  or  products  containing 

biotechnology  organisms  intended  for  human  consumption  without  the  approval  of  the 

Chief  Food  Authority.    Sri  Lanka  does  not  currently  have  a  functioning  approval 

mechanism,  therefore  this  regulation  acts  as  a  de facto  ban  for  whole  grains  and  other 

products that are biotech‐derived.  Further, Sri Lanka requires all commodity imports to be 

accompanied by a “non‐GE” certification on import licenses.  USDA and USTR raised these 

issues with the Sri Lankan government during the October 2010 TIFA meeting.  The United 

States will continue  to engage Sri Lanka on  these measures, which effectively prohibit all 

trade in biotech‐derived crops and other products.    

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 
79 

SWITZERLAND  

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 

biotechnology  crops.    This  moratorium  has  been  extended  by  an  act  of  Parliament  until 

November 2013.  This moratorium does not apply to field trials.  U.S. officials will continue 

to  urge  Switzerland  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 biotechnology trade issue. 

TAIWAN (CHINESE TAIPEI)

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  final  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’ 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), which discourages imports of these products.  More recently, Taiwan has imposed 

additional  testing on some imports of U.S. bone‐in beef.  While  this additional  testing has 

not resulted in the rejection of any shipment of U.S. bone‐in beef, it has delayed delivery of 

the product into commercial channels and created uncertainty in the market. 

The  United  States  has  raised  these  issues  with  Taiwan  in  various  venues,  including  in  a 

September 2010 visit by USTR officials.  At each opportunity, the United States has stated 

that it expects Taiwan to act consistently with its obligations under the Protocol.  The U.S. 

Government will continue to attach importance to the beef issue and will continue to urge 
80 

Taiwan to open its market fully based on science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ 

controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Ractopamine in Pork and Beef

Taiwan  has  delayed  the  implementation  of  its  proposed  MRL  for  ractopamine,  which  it 

notified  to  the  WTO  in  2007,  but  remains  unapproved.    Taiwan’s  lack  of  progress  in 

adopting this MRL has raised a significant trade concern by forcing U.S. pork producers to 

ship pork products selectively sourced from animals not treated with ractopamine.   

In  January 2011, Taiwan publicly announced  that  two shipments of U.S. beef inspected at 

the port of entry had tested positive for ractopamine.  Taiwan began to conduct extensive 

market  surveillance, including additional  testing  of  packages  of  beef in  supermarkets.    In 

the course of this market surveillance, three packages of U.S. beef already on the shelf also 

tested  positive  for  the  presence  of  ractopamine.    Taiwan  authorities  have  indicated  that 

they will continue to carry out enhanced inspection and testing of U.S. beef due to concerns 

over  ractopamine.    There  is  considerable  uncertainty  as  to  the  exact  details  of  the 

inspection and  testing measures Taiwan is applying  to U.S.  beef  shipments at  the  port  of 

entry and to product that has already entered the Taiwan market.  This uncertainty, which 

has resulted from Taiwan’s failure to approve the MRL and the unpredictability in Taiwan’s 

inspection and testing regime, raises serious concerns both for U.S. beef producers and for 

beef importers in Taiwan and negatively impacts the bilateral beef trade. 

U.S. officials have raised these issues at several meetings of the WTO SPS Committee and at 

numerous bilateral meetings with Taiwan, as well as most recently at the highest levels of 

the  Taiwan  government.    Taiwan  authorities  appear  to  have  acknowledged,  in  public 

statements and in various bilateral meetings with the United States, that trace amounts of 

ractopamine do not present a health risk.  However, Taiwan continues  to insist on a zero 

tolerance  policy  for  ractopamine.    The  United  States  continues  to  encourage  Taiwan  to 

implement its proposed MRL for ractopamine without further delay. 

See section III.E for an explanation of the ractopamine trade issue. 

Maximum Residue Limits

Taiwan’s slow and cumbersome process for adopting MRLs has resulted in a substantial 

backlog  of  over  1,500  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, and corn) due to the detection of pesticide residue levels that are within U.S. 

or Codex standards, but for which Taiwan has not yet established MRLs.  
81 

To  avoid  continuing  trade  disruptions,  the  United  States  has  urged  Taiwan  on  several 

occasions  to  act  consistently  with  the  1999  U.S.–Taiwan  agreement  on  MRLs,  which 

provides  that  Taiwan will  defer  to  Codex MRLs,  or U.S. MRLs where  Codex  has  not  set  a 

tolerance, until Taiwan establishes a more comprehensive set of MRLs.  While  the United 

States  is  encouraged  by  Taiwan’s  recent  efforts  to  work  through  the  backlog  of  MRL 

requests  more  expeditiously,  shipments  of  U.S.  agricultural  products  remain  at  risk  of 

rejection due  to  the absence of MRLs  for a large number of pesticides  that are commonly 

used  internationally.    U.S.  agricultural  products  that  rely  on  newer,  safer  alternatives  to 

older,  more  dangerous  chemicals  that  are  being  phased  out  in  the  United  States,  are 

particularly  at  risk  of  being  rejected.    The U.S.  Government  has  worked  extensively  with 

Taiwan through data sharing and technical assistance to  facilitate Taiwan’s establishment 

of MRLs  for  these newer, safer chemicals.  The United States continues  to raise  this issue 

with Taiwan in order 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  and  nearly  all  non‐ruminant‐origin 

ingredients  intended  for  use  in  animal  feed  and  pet  food,  such  as  tallow  (including 

protein‐free  tallow),  lard,  and  porcine  meal,  due  to  BSE‐related  concerns.    Additionally, 

U.S.‐origin pet  food exported  to Taiwan must  originate  from U.S.  facilities  that have  been 

visited  and  cleared  by  Taiwan’s  Bureau  of  Animal  and  Plant  Health  Inspection  and 

Quarantine. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

  

Plant Health

Apples

The Codling Moth is a pest of apples in the United States and a pest of quarantine concern 

to Taiwan, where it is not known to exist.  Following a Codling Moth detection in Taiwan in 

November  2002,  Taiwan  suspended  the importation  of all U.S. apples.    In  June  2003,  the 

United States and Taiwan signed a protocol with a penalty structure that allowed Taiwan to 

suspend imports of U.S.‐origin apples if three Codling Moth detections occurred in a single 

shipping  season  (often  referred  to  as  “three  strikes”).    While  this  penalty  structure  has 

facilitated  continued  trade,  there is  the  possibility  of another market  closure if  there  are 

“three  strikes”  in  a  single  shipping  season.    To  date,  it  appears  that  Taiwan  has  not 

conducted  a  PRA  for  Codling  Moth  in  apples.    U.S.  regulatory  authorities  have  provided 

Taiwan  with  U.S.  research  demonstrating  that  the  risk  associated  with  Codling  Moth 

transmission and establishment in Taiwan via U.S.‐origin apples is extremely low.  Taiwan 

authorities  continue  to  review  this  research,  but  have  not  yet  met  with  U.S.  officials  to 
82 

discuss the U.S. findings in detail.  During a technical bilateral held in January 2011, Taiwan 

agreed to evaluate an alternative penalty structure proposal.  The United States submitted 

a new proposal to Taiwan in February 2011 and is awaiting a response.  

THAILAND  

Food Safety  

Pork

In  January 2010, Thailand lifted its  ban  on U.S.  pork and  pork products  that  had  been in 

place based on H1N1‐flu concerns.  However, U.S. producers have not resumed exporting 

unprocessed  pork  products  and  offals  to  Thailand,  due  to  Thailand’s  requirement  that 

exporters agree to a number of burdensome requirements, including the requirement that 

each  producer’s  facility  be  inspected  by  Thai  officials.    The  United  States  has  urged 

Thailand to agree to a protocol adopting a systems‐based approach that analyzes the entire 

U.S. food safety system relating to pork production, rather than relying on individual plant 

inspections  for  all  exporting  facilities.    Thailand  also imposes  other  trade  restrictions  on 

imports of U.S. pork and pork products, including a prohibition concerning trace residues 

of ractopamine in pork.   

See section III.E for an explanation of the ractopamine trade issue. 

Beef and Beef Products

Thailand has banned 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 under 30 months  of age.  The United States continues  to 

engage  Thailand  to  fully  open  its  beef  market  to  U.S.  beef  and  beef  products  based  on 

science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

TURKEY  

Biotechnology  

On  October  29,  2009,  Turkey  adopted  a  biotechnology  regulation that  was  implemented 

immediately, without  notification  to  the WTO,  and  resulted in immediate market  closure 

for U.S. agricultural biotechnology products.  Subsequently,  the regulation was challenged 

in  Turkey’s  courts  and  revised  multiple  times  by  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural 

Affairs (MARA).  In April 2010, MARA’s final revision of the regulation permitted Turkey to 

approve  products  incorporating  EU‐approved  biotech  events,  in  effect  restoring  market 

access  for  most  biotechnology  products.    However,  on  September  26,  2010,  Turkey 

implemented a new, overarching Biosafety Law which immediately negated the approvals 
83 

granted  under  the  previous    regulation  and  effectively  stopped  all  trade  in  products 

containing biotech events (primarily soy and corn products).   

Under the new law, MARA has pressed biotech developers to re‐apply for approval of their 

events.   However,  these  developers are  reluctant  to  re‐apply given  that MARA  has  yet  to 

determine a number of essential details of the approval process.  For example, MARA has 

yet  to  clarify  which  documents  are  needed,  what  criteria  will  be  used  to  evaluate  the 

application,  what  may  constitute  a  failure  of  compliance  and,  in  situations  of  non‐

compliance, what level and kind of penalties will apply.    

The United States has raised concerns about specific provisions of the 2010 Biosafety Law 

and its implementing regulations with Turkish officials.   In addition,  the U.S. Government 

and  industry  stakeholders  have  held  a  number  of  consultations  with  the  Government  of 

Turkey and Turkish industry about biotechnology and the biotechnology‐derived products 

affected  by  this  law  and  implementing  regulations.    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 biotechnology trade issue. 

Food Safety  

Meat

In September 2010, Turkey, for the first time since 1996, signaled a willingness to engage 

in discussions on  the opening of its market  to U.S. beef and beef products, plus cattle and 

sheep for feeding and slaughter.  However, Turkey’s proposed import conditions appear to 

deviate from OIE guidelines for BSE.  The United States will continue to engage with Turkey 

to open fully its market to U.S. beef and beef products, plus live cattle and sheep, based on 

science, the OIE guidelines, and the United States’ controlled risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Plant Health  

Wood Products

In February 2009, Turkey imposed regulations requiring wood products imported from the 

United  States  be  free  from  bark;  free  from  grub  holes;  contain  less  than  20  percent 

moisture  or  be  kiln  dried,  heat  treated,  or  fumigated;  and  be  accompanied  by  a 

phytosanitary certificate stating that the product is from an area free from Bursaphelenchus

xylophilus (pinewood nematode).  The United States engaged Turkey on these regulations 

and Turkey amended its wood quarantine regulations on August 23, 2010, allowing trade 

in  wood  products  to  resume.    As  part  of  these  amendments,  Turkey  removed  the 

requirement that an area be free from pinewood nematode when a treatment is performed 

to the wood product. 
84 

UKRAINE  

Biotechnology

Ukraine’s  parliament  enacted  a  law  establishing  the  framework  for  the  creation,  testing, 

and  use  of  products  of agricultural  biotechnology in  2007,  but most  of  the implementing 

regulations  necessary  to  open  the market  are  still  under  development.   In October  2010, 

the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine approved a procedure for state registration of biotech 

events  used in  feed,  feed  additives,  and  veterinary  drugs.  Ukraine  also  recently issued  a 

temporary approval of a soybean event to facilitate the importation of soy in animal feed.  

However,  Ukraine  continues  to  lack  regulations  permitting  the  use  of  approved  biotech 

products  for  cultivation  or  import,  which  has  led  to  unpredictable  trade  conditions  for 

biotech‐derived  food,  feed, and seed products.  The United States continues  to work with 

Ukraine to establish a functioning and predictable biotech regulatory framework based on 

science.    

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES  

Food Safety

Food Safety Requirements

See discussion of Gulf Cooperation Council for food safety requirements. 

Beef and Beef Products

In July 2009, after having previously fully opening its market to U.S. beef and beef products, 

the  United  Arab  Emirates  (UAE)  reduced  market  access  by  requiring  that  all  imports  of 

fresh and  frozen  beef and  beef products  be derived  from animals less  than 30 months  of 

age due to BSE‐related concerns.  The United States continues to engage with UAE to fully 

reopen its market for all U.S. beef and beef products based on science, the OIE guidelines, 

and the United States’ controlled risk status.

See Section III.C for a discussion of the BSE trade issue. 
85 

URUGUAY

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Uruguay  currently  bans imports  of  all  U.S. live  cattle,  beef,  and  beef  products  due  to  the 

detection  of  a  BSE  positive  animal  in  the  United  States  in  2003.    The  United  States 

continues  to engage with Uruguay  to open its market  for all beef and beef products  from 

the  United  States  based  on  science,  the  OIE  guidelines,  and  the  United  States’  controlled 

risk status. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Animal Health  

Poultry

Uruguay  currently  bans  imports  of  many  U.S.  fresh  and  frozen  poultry  products  due  to 

purported  concerns  over  Newcastle’s  disease.    In  October  2007,  the  United  States  and 

Uruguay finalized an agreement that resulted in new market access for U.S. turkey exports.  

The U.S. consent to this agreement, however, was premised on the understanding that the 

two  countries  would  complete  negotiations  to  provide  market  access  for  all  poultry  and 

poultry  products,  consistent  with  science  and  the  relevant  OIE  guidelines.    In  early  June 

2010,  the  two governments  reached an agreement  on export  certificate language  for U.S. 

processed chicken products.  All other U.S. poultry and poultry exports to Uruguay remain 

banned. 

The United States raised the issue of poultry market access during the October 2010 TIFA 

meetings with Uruguay.  Uruguay informed the United States that a thorough review of U.S. 

fresh and frozen poultry was underway, and that a final decision on market access for these 

products  based  on  international  standards  would  be  forthcoming.    The  United  States 

continues  to  engage  with  Uruguay  to  open  its  market  to  all  U.S.  poultry  and  poultry 

products. 

VENEZUELA  

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Venezuela  bans  all  U.S.  live  cattle,  beef,  and  beef  products  due  to  the  detection  of  a  BSE 

positive animal in  the United States in 2003.  The United States continues  to engage with 

Venezuela  to open its market based on science,  the OIE guidelines, and  the United States’ 

BSE controlled risk status. 
86 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 

Animal Health  

Poultry

Venezuela  bans  imports  of  poultry  and  poultry  products  if  they  have  not  been 

manufactured  by  processes  that  guarantee  the  elimination  of  AI  viruses.    In  addition, 

Venezuela does not issue sanitary import permits for U.S. poultry on the basis that it may 

have  been  infected  with  AI.    These  restrictions  do  not  appear  to  be  consistent  with  OIE 

guidelines. 

See section III.A for an explanation of the AI trade issue. 

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 have unnecessarily restricted trade.     

The  United  States  continues  to  urge  Vietnam  to  adopt  SPS  measures  consistent  with 

international guidelines, recommendations, and standards, specifically 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 equivalency 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. 

  

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

  

In  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 working to agree on the animal health 

requirements to facilitate the trade in live cattle, beef, and beef products.  The United States 

continues  to engage with Vietnam  to open its market  for all beef and beef products  from 

the  United  States  based  on  science,  the  OIE  guidelines,  and  the  United  States’  controlled 

risk status. 
87 

See section III.C for a description of the BSE trade issue. 

Offal Ban

On July 7, 2010, Vietnam implemented a “temporary ban” on the importation of offals from 

all  countries,  including  the  United  States.    Vietnam  cited  food  safety  concerns  as 

justification for implementing the ban, but it provided no scientific data to the WTO or any 

trading  partner  to  support  this justification.   On August  17,  2010, ambassadors  from  the 

United  States,  Canada,  the  EU,  Australia,  and  New  Zealand  sent  a  letter  to  the  Prime 

Minister of Vietnam  requesting Vietnam  to justify  the ban and provide greater specificity 

with respect to the products covered by the ban.  U.S. officials, along with representatives 

from the other countries, reiterated this request in a meeting with Vietnamese officials in 

November 2010.  U.S. officials have also raised  this issue on  the margins of  the WTO SPS 

Committee meeting in Geneva.    To  date,  Vietnam  has  not lifted  this  ban  or  provided  any 

justification for it.  The United States will continue to engage with Vietnam on this issue. 

  

Products of Animal Origin

  

In May 2010, Vietnam issued a new regulation outlining food hygiene and safety standards 

for  imported  foods  of  animal  origin.    The  U.S.  Government  and  industry  have  raised 

concerns  regarding  the  need  for  the  regulation,  its  burdensome  requirements,  and  the 

potential proprietary nature of some of the company‐specific information requested in the 

regulation.  As a result of requests by the United States and other trading partners, Vietnam 

extended  the original effective date of  the regulation  three  times, allowing countries until 

the end of February 2011 to provide company‐specific information.  While immediate trade 

disruption  has  been  avoided,  the  United  States  continues  to  work  with  Vietnam  on 

resolving longer term issues related to this regulation.     

Products of Plant Origin

In August 2010, Vietnam issued  regulations affecting imported goods of plant origin, and 

notified  them  to  the WTO.  The United States has raised a number of questions about  the 

regulations’ requirements, including how  the measures will be implemented domestically 

and  to what extent Vietnam  has  taken into account  the different levels  of  risk associated 

with  different  goods  of  plant  origin  from  different  countries.    The United  States  also  has 

raised  concerns  regarding  exporter  registration  requirements,  sampling  rates,  and  the 

coverage of MRLs, among others.  The measure was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 

2011,  but it appears  this  date  has  been extended  to  July  1,  2011.   The United States will 

continue to work with Vietnam to address its concerns.  

Zero Tolerance Level for Salmonella

  

Vietnam currently applies a zero tolerance level for Salmonella on uncooked poultry meat.  

The United States has raised concerns with the scientific basis for this measure.  Although 

Codex has yet to publish maximum allowable levels for Salmonella bacteria on raw poultry 
88 

meat,  it  is  generally  accepted  by  food  safety  experts  and  scientists  that  such  pathogens 

cannot be removed entirely from raw meat and that proper storage, handling, and cooking 

of raw poultry meat reduce significantly the risk of a number of food‐borne diseases caused 

by  these  pathogens.    Vietnam,  however,  has  not  officially  accepted  this  approach  as 

sufficient.  The United States continues to work with Vietnam on this issue.  
89

V. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

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  United  States  seeks  to  ensure  that  other 

governments base their SPS measures on scientific risk assessments and refrain from using 

SPS  measures  as  disguised  restrictions  on  international  trade.    The  technical  assistance 

provided  by  the  United  States  has  helped  many  developing  countries  build  their  SPS 

regulatory  infrastructure,  which  in  turn  has  opened  new  markets  for  U.S.  agricultural 

products.  In 2010, the U.S. Government obligated to provide  funds  for SPS trade capacity 

building in excess of $10.4 million.    

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 they face 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  the  Standards  and  Trade 

Development  Facility  (STDF)  and  the  APEC  forum,  to  improve  the  risk  assessment 

capabilities of all Members.

Trade Capacity Building

U.S. trade capacity building efforts in the SPS area seek to foster a clear understanding of 

key  SPS  provisions  in  international  and  bilateral  trade  agreements,  including  the 

important  requirement  that  SPS  measures  be  supported  by  science,  as  well  as  the 

fundamentals of risk assessment, and the most effective way to build and administer SPS 

regulatory programs.  Forms of assistance provided by the United States include regional 

trade capacity building workshops, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits.

The  United  States  administers  a  number  of  programs  to  build  foreign  expertise  in 

biotechnology, food safety, animal health, and plant health.  For example, USDA’s trade and 

scientific  exchange  programs,  such  as  the  Cochran  Fellowship  Program  and  Norman  E. 

Borlaug  International  Science  and  Technology  Fellows  Program,  provide  training  and 

research  opportunities  for  individuals  from  middle‐income  countries,  emerging 

democracies,  and  emerging  markets  in  agricultural  trade  and  policy;  agribusiness 
90 

development  and  management;  animal,  plant,  and  food  sciences;  extension  services; 

agricultural  marketing;  and  many  other  areas.    Individuals  selected  for  participation  in 

these  U.S.‐based  programs  come  from  both  the  public  and  private  sectors.    Training 

programs  are  designed  and  organized  in  conjunction  with  U.S.  universities,  USDA,  and 

other government agencies, agribusinesses, and consultants.  

USDA’s Food for Progress program administers 39 agreements which focus on SPS issues in 

22  countries.   Many  of  these  agreements  were  reached  with  private  voluntary 

organizations, while others were concluded with the governments of Ecuador, Guatemala, 

Nicaragua,  Honduras,  the  Dominican  Republic  and  the  Philippines.    Food  for  Progress 

supports projects and activities tailored to the SPS needs of each country.  

Trade capacity building is one way that the U.S. Government works to ensure that foreign 

governments do not use SPS measures  to  restrict  trade.  By supporting  the adoption and 

effective  implementation  of  science‐based  standards  in  other  countries,  the  U.S. 

Government helps to lower unjustified barriers to trade and expand market access for U.S. 

agricultural and food products.

The  following  section  provides  a  description  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 during 2010.

Regional Activities

Africa

A  collaborative  effort  between  USDA  and  the  U.S.  Agency  for  International  Development 

(USAID)  supports  four  resident  SPS  Advisors  and  Coordinators  in  Sub‐Saharan  Africa  to 

cover  the  East,  West,  and  Southern  Africa  regions.    In  2010,  the  SPS  Advisors  and 

Coordinators  directly  supported  government  SPS  agencies  in  their  respective  regions  to 

develop  institutional  capacity  for  science‐based  regulatory  systems  consistent  with 

international standards.  As part of the SPS capacity building program, USDA contributed to 

a seminar on trade and risk‐based disease control for chief veterinary officers from African 

Union  member  countries  in  Entebbe,  Uganda.    The  seminar  discussed  principles  of  risk 

analysis  relating  to  trade  in  livestock  and  animal  products.   The  United  States  used 

fellowship and exchange programs such as the Cochran Fellowship Program, the Norman E. 

Borlaug International Science and Technology Fellows Program, and the Faculty Exchange 

Program, to complement the SPS capacity building program.  

The United States sponsored a Codex Delegates Colloquium, which brought together Codex 

delegates  from  throughout  Africa  to  discuss  enhancing  regional  cooperation  on  the 

adoption and implementation of science‐based food safety standards.  This colloquium also 

provided an  opportunity  to  develop areas  of mutual agreement in advance  of  the  official 

Codex technical committee meeting.    
91 

USDA  also  conducted  Codex  capacity  building  workshops  in  Mozambique,  Senegal,  and 

Zambia.  These workshops  strengthen  these countries’ ability  to participate effectively in 

Codex and help ensure the adoption of science‐based food safety standards.   

In 2010, APHIS provided training to West and Central African countries on surveillance of 

transboundary diseases in West and Central African Countries.  FAS also sponsored a two‐

week  Plant  Health  Systems  Analysis  Course  for  African  government  officials  and 

researchers in the international plant health community.  Participants learned how APHIS 

confronts the complex challenges posed by global and domestic plant health issues, which 

included reviewing fundamental concepts of plant health, identifying relevant government 

agencies,  international  organizations,  and  industries,  and  studying  key  international 

standards and agreements. 

Asia

The  U.S.  Government’s  participation  in  the  APEC  Food  Safety  Cooperation  Forum  (FSCF) 

and related events signifies an important investment in the development of the food safety 

systems  of U.S.  trading partners in  the Asia‐Pacific  region.  Under  the  FSCF’s  Partnership 

Training  Institute  Network,  FDA  and  its  federal  partners  assembled  90  food  safety  and 

training experts from APEC economies, academia, and the private sector at the World Bank 

in Washington, D.C. in May 2010,  to create a partnership aimed at building effective  food 

safety training capacity across the APEC region.  The group strategized on best practices to 

disseminate training materials and discussed mechanisms  for evaluating the effectiveness 

of training with respect to risk analysis, supply chain management, laboratory capacity, and 

management of food emergencies.   

The efforts of the United States in the region to coordinate technical training and share best 

practices will increase  the  capacity  of APEC economies  to  regulate  food  safety  consistent 

with  international  standards  and  will  help  to  ensure  the  adoption  of  science‐  and  risk‐

based approaches to food safety to help facilitate global trade. 

Dominican Republic – Central America – United States FTA

The Trade Capacity Building  program in  CAFTA‐DR  countries, which is  part  of a  broader 

U.S. capacity building effort in the area, includes SPS‐related activities.  Under this program, 

the  United  States  helps  CAFTA‐DR  countries  to  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.  SPS assistance to CAFTA‐DR countries is based 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.    The United States  utilizes  programs  such as  the 

USDA’s Cochran Fellowship Program and the Norman E. Borlaug International Science and 

Technology Fellows Program to complement the SPS program. 
92 

Other Latin American and Caribbean Countries  

In  2010,  the  United  States  supported  a  number  of  food  safety  training  activities  in  the 

Caribbean.    The  United  States  sponsored  a  Caribbean  Food  Safety  Workshop  in  Miami, 

Florida  for  delegates  from  seven  countries,  representing  their  agriculture  and  health 

ministries, to discuss the status of food safety in the region, the possible establishment of a 

region‐wide Caribbean Community and Common Market  (CARICOM)  technical committee 

for food safety, and how to improve coordination of SPS issues at the regional and national 

levels.  The United States also hosted multiple Codex Delegates Colloquiums, which brought 

together  delegates  from  throughout  Latin  America  and  the  Caribbean  for  technical 

committees  to  enhance  regional  cooperation  on  the  adoption  and  implementation  of 

science‐based food safety standards.   

USDA provided training to national Codex contact points from throughout the Caribbean to 

help them participate in Codex, organize their domestic Codex offices more effectively, and 

improve coordination and collaboration with other countries.  USDA also initiated an effort 

in  Brazil  and  other  Latin  American  countries  to  facilitate  the  global  harmonization  of 

pesticide MRLs to conform to Codex standards.  

Country­Specific Activities

Argentina

Through  the  USDA‐FAS  Cochran  Fellowship  Program,  four  Fellows  attended  a  biological 

control  training  program  at  the  USDA  Agricultural  Research  Service  Invasive  Plant 

Research Laboratory.   

Bangladesh

The FDA and University of Maryland provided Bangladeshi government officials, industry 

representatives,  and  academics  advanced  training  on  a  range  of  SPS‐related  topics, 

including  U.S.  food  and  drug law,  seafood  and  aquaculture  food  safety  systems,  the  drug 

and food/color additive approval process, human health hazards associated with fish feed, 

persistent  chemicals and  heavy metals,  FDA import  procedures and  field  operations, and 

third  party  inspections.    The  FDA  also  partners  with  the  Bangladesh  Shrimp  and  Fish 

Foundation to run the Aquacultural Food Safety Center.  The center receives support from 

the government of Bangladesh and non‐governmental organizations.  

Barbados

FAS sponsored the participation of three Cochran Fellows from Barbados to attend a meat 

and  poultry  inspection  training  seminar  conducted  by  FSIS.    The  seminar  provided  an 

overview  of  FSIS  regulatory  expertise,  including  an  introduction  to  Hazard  Analysis  and 

Critical  Control  Points  (HACCP),  pathogen  reduction,  import  and  export  policies  and 

procedures, and equivalence. 
93 

Belize

APHIS  provided  Incident  Command  System  (ICS)  training  on  emergency  response 

techniques  for  chief  veterinary  officers  in  Belize.    APHIS  experts  addressed  previous 

outbreaks of low pathogenic avian influenza and Newcastle’s Disease, and lessons learned 

from emergency  response  plans.   APHIS also  provided  ICS‐related materials  for  program 

emergency  planning.    Additionally,  the  United  States  hosted  training  in  Belize,  with 

participation  of  both  the  public and  private  sector,  under  that  country’s National  Poultry 

Improvement Plan.  A poultry expert from APHIS reviewed Belize’s current program, made 

suggestions on how best to administer it, and provided training about the operation of the 

industry‐state‐federal cooperative National Poultry Improvement Plan in the United States.  

This activity was an important part of U.S. efforts in helping Belize meet international SPS 

standards.   

Cambodia

APHIS  funded  four  APHIS‐Cambodia  staff  and  veterinary  epidemiologists  to  train 

municipal  and  provincial  officers  on  the  prevention  and  control  of  avian  influenza  in 

Cambodia.  APHIS also sponsored a one‐week course on veterinary pathology to instruct 

Cambodian veterinarians on how to differentiate poultry diseases.  In 2010, the Cochran 

Fellowship  Program  provided  funding  for  activities  such  as  training  on  U.S.  food  safety 

standards,  including  an  overview  of  U.S.  food  safety  systems  with  a  focus  on  risk 

communication,  certification  systems,  and  the  enforcement  of  food  and  agricultural 

standards.    Participants  had  the  opportunity  to  consult  with  representatives  from  U.S. 

regulatory  agencies  including  APHIS,  FDA,  and  FSIS.    This  training  supported  the 

development and adoption  of  science‐based SPS  regulatory  systems.   USDA also  funded 

work under  the Emerging Markets Program  to help Cambodia establish its SPS Enquiry 

Point and Codex contact point.  

Chile

The  FDA  held  a  seminar  hosted  by  the  Universidad  Austral  de  Chile  for  50  government 

officials,  academics,  and  salmon  industry  representatives  on  good  aquaculture  practices, 

HACCP, food safety management systems, and veterinary drug residue testing. 

China

The United States funded a number of programs to train Chinese officials on pesticide risk 

assessments,  establishment  of  maximum  residue  levels,  and  the  facilitation  of  pesticide 

registrations.    This  training  will  enhance  China’s  capacity  to  conduct  risk  assessments 

based  on  internationally‐accepted  scientific  standards.    The  University  of  Georgia,  with 

funding from the U.S. Government, provided training to six Chinese officials on food tracing 

technologies,  techniques  to  improve  temperature  monitoring,  and  the  importance  of 

utilizing international  standards  and  risk  assessments.    APHIS  and  Iowa  State  University 
94 

trained  six  Chinese  officials  from  the  China  Institute  of  Veterinary  Control  to  assist  the 

Chinese  government  with  plans  to  establish  an  OIE  collaboration  center  in  Beijing.    The 

training  covered  topics  such  as  pre‐license  evaluation,  risk  assessment  for  genetically 

modified  vaccines,  standardized  reagents,  and  post‐marketing  surveillance  of  veterinary 

biological  products.    FDA  officials,  joined  by  University  of  Maryland,  provided  technical 

assistance  to  approximately  50  producers  and  regulators  of low  acid  and  acidified  foods 

through the Commercially‐Sterile Processed Foods Training Program.   

Colombia

The United States sponsored Cochran Fellows from Colombia to attend a training program 

in HACCP,  food  safety  regulations, and inspection practices, designed in conjunction with 

Texas A&M University.  This training provided the Fellows with an in‐depth understanding 

of the food safety regulatory system in the United States. 

Costa Rica

The United States sponsored three Cochran Fellows from Costa Rica to attend a two‐week 

program  organized  by Michigan  State University  on  food  safety  policy  development,  risk 

analysis,  and  SPS  program  implementation.    Fellows  also  met  with  key  U.S.  Government 

officials and the International Food Policy Research Institute.   

Croatia

USDA  funded  food  safety  training  for  three  Croatian  officials.    This  training,  which  was 

designed in conjunction with  the University of Missouri, provided  the officials with an in‐

depth  knowledge  of  the  agencies,  practices,  and  methods  involved  in  U.S.  food  safety 

procedures  and  regulations.      This  training  will  help  decrease future  food  safety‐related 

trade restrictions and lead to the expansion of U.S. agricultural exports to Croatia.   

Dominican Republic

The United States sponsored several SPS‐related activities in the Dominican Republic.  As 

part of its activities, FAS sponsored a veterinary inspector and an expert in HACCP  from 

the Inter‐American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture to provide training on HACCP 

and  post‐mortem  and  anti‐mortem  techniques  for  government  inspectors  and  meat 

producers.  This training is part of ongoing USDA efforts to assist the Dominican Republic 

in achieving equivalency with the United States for processed meat products in support of 

the CAFTA‐DR.  APHIS experts also worked with officials from the Dominican Republic to 

review its  general  strategy,  work  plans,  and  budgets  for  Classical  Swine  Fever  (CSF)  to 

help  the Dominican Republic prepare  for any occurrences of CSF.   In collaboration with 

Texas A & M University,  the U.S. Government provided  technical training  for Dominican 

officials on laboratory methods for detecting E. Coli and Salmonella bacteria in meats and 

fresh  produce.    FDA  and  FAS  sponsored  pesticide  residue  laboratory  training  to  the 

Ministry  of  Agriculture’s  Pesticide  Residue  Laboratory,  addressing  laboratory  quality 
95 

assurance  systems;  pesticide  residue  analytical  capacities;  and  sampling,  analysis,  and 

instrumentation applications.   

In  2009,  utilizing  Food  for  Progress  grant  funds,  the  U.S.  Government  began  a  four‐year 

program to enhance the Dominican Republic’s capacity to fully engage in commercial trade 

in  food  and  agricultural  products.    The  funded  activities include  upgrading  of laboratory 

infrastructure, operations, and analytical testing capabilities; development of animal health 

surveillance,  inspection,  and  sanitary  standards  for  animal  products;  risk  assessment 

methodologies  and  development  of  risk  mitigation  methods;  traceability  of  agricultural 

products  through  the  production  and marketing  chain;  coordination  and  participation in 

international  standard‐setting  organizations;  and  strengthening  of  domestic  SPS 

institutions and infrastructure, such as animal and plant quarantine stations in ports and 

airports. 

Egypt

The United States organized a conference  for more than 100 regulators  from countries in 

the  North  Africa  and  Middle  East  regions,  coinciding  with  the  opening  of  the  new  FDA 

Middle East‐North Africa office.  The program focused on the fundamentals of food systems, 

such as regulatory science, company registration, inspection, surveillance, risk assessment 

and  food labeling.  The United States also sponsored a  technical workshop on  food safety 

and  biotechnology  to  assist  Egyptian  government  agencies,  academia,  and  trade  and 

consumer  groups  in  understanding  the  techniques  of  risk  analysis  as  they  apply  to  food 

safety  and  biotechnology issues.    Cochran  Fellows  from  Egypt  also  attended  a  two‐week 

FSIS  seminar  on  meat  and  poultry  inspection  for  international  government  officials,  and 

three  Borlaug  Fellows  received  training  and  conducted  collaborative  research  on 

identifying and  utilizing  phytosanitary measures  to  prevent and  control  pest infestations 

both pre‐and post‐harvest.   

El Salvador

The  United  States  sponsored  several  activities  in  El  Salvador,  including  training  to  build 

pesticide  laboratory  capacity  for  El  Salvador's  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Livestock 

Laboratory; pesticide residue laboratory training for El Salvadoran Ministry of Agriculture 

technicians; and training  for El Salvadoran technicians on residue analysis and laboratory 

accreditation as part of a long‐term capacity building program aimed to strengthen Central 

American  national  laboratories  in  operational  and  testing  methods  to  meet  U.S.  and 

international  standards.    The  United  States  also  provided  microbiological  laboratory 

training on Listeria in ready‐to‐eat products  to government officials of  the El Salvadorian 

Ministries of Agriculture and Health National Laboratories.  

Ethiopia

The  United  States  sponsored  several  SPS‐related  trade  capacity  building  activities  for 

Ethiopia,  including  workshops,  seminars,  conferences,  hands‐on  training  programs,  and 
96 

visits.   Academic  participants  from  Ethiopia  trained  at  Texas A&M University  to  upgrade 

their technical subject knowledge; improve their teaching and research skills; and develop 

new and revised courses for introduction at their home institutions.  They attended a two‐

week  workshop  on  pest  risk  analysis,  border/airport  inspection,  and  the  U.S.  national 

surveillance system for plant diseases, among other courses.  Additionally, a Borlaug Fellow 

received  training  on  food  safety  standards  and  policy  issues  specific  to  fruits  and 

vegetables at the University of Georgia. 

  

Guatemala

FAS and FDA provided pesticide residue laboratory training for officials from the National 

Health  Lab, addressing laboratory  quality assurance  systems,  pesticide  residue analytical 

capacities, and sampling, analysis, and instrumentation applications.   

Honduras

The United States sponsored pesticide residue laboratory  training  for Honduran Ministry 

of  Agriculture  technicians  and  other  government  officials  on  residue  analysis  and 

laboratory  accreditation  as  part  of  a  long‐term  capacity  building  program  aimed  at 

strengthening  the  operational  and  testing  methods  of  Central  American  national 

laboratories in order to meet U.S. and international standards.  

India

During 2010, the United States sponsored several activities in India and the United States, 

including  training  related  to  allergen  and  toxin  testing  of  genetically  modified  crops; 

HACCP plan development; econometric analysis of  food safety measures  from  the  farm  to 

the consumer; and risk analysis models  for  food safety and  food borne pathogens.  USDA 

sponsored one scholar from India for a two‐month program at Tuskegee University on risk 

analysis models regarding food safety and pesticides.  FDA experts presented information 

on  food  safety  requirements  at  the  World  Spice  Congress,  conducted  food  safety 

assessments,  and  worked  with  the  India  Spices  Board  to  develop  international  technical 

assistance outreach materials to improve spice safety. 

Indonesia

The  United  States  helped  Indonesia  host  the  Codex  Committee  on  Processed  Fruits  and 

Vegetables, which brought together committee delegates from around the world to discuss 

the adoption of applicable food safety standards.  The United States also sponsored various 

SPS‐related  training  activities  for  government  officials,  covering  topics  such  as  the  U.S. 

regulatory system  for processed products and the detection of and response to outbreaks 

of animal diseases.  The United States also held workshops to assist Indonesian officials in 

preventing  the  spread  of H5N1 avian influenza.    FDA experts and  other U.S. Government 

officials instructed Indonesian officials on the U.S. food safety system for processed foods. 
97 

Iraq

The United States  funded an effort  to help  the  Iraqi Veterinary Medical Syndicate  (IVMS) 

increase  knowledge  and  awareness  of  animal  health issues  and  practices.    In  connection 

with  this  effort,  the  United  States  provided  programmatic  and  financial  support  for 

meetings,  training programs, and workshops  for  IVMS members and associates.  Funding 

for this program runs through 2015. 

Jamaica

USDA,  with  assistance  from  FDA,  provided  training  to  two  Jamaican  Veterinary  Services 

Division veterinary medical officers in Washington, D.C.  Workshop agenda items included 

export certification training/orientation for animal product food commodities exported to 

Jamaica, including  processed  foods,  seafood,  dairy, eggs and meat, as well as animal  feed 

commodities that contain animal products.  Follow up to this workshop was conducted in 

Kingston,  Jamaica  by  USDA,  with  assistance  from  the  Department  of  Commerce,  and 

included  discussions  on  pet  foods  and  U.S.  market  access  for  swine  meat,  as  well  as 

certification for seafood.  

Kazakhstan

The United States sponsored nine Cochran Fellows from Kazakhstan to receive training on 

food  safety  and  animal  health.    Food  safety  training  addressed  various  topics  including 

advanced  food  safety  standards; HACCP  regulations;  certification  of  exports;  government 

inspection  and  control;  laboratory  analysis  at  production  facilities;  and  modern  safety 

equipment.  Training on animal health examined veterinary diagnostics; animal products; 

import  and  export  control  systems;  agricultural  biosecurity;  disease  control;  and 

quarantine  programs.    Fellows  also  visited  university  and  state  veterinary  diagnostic 

laboratories in Texas. 

   

Kenya

The  United  States  funded  several  SPS‐related  technical  assistance  activities  in  Kenya.  

USAID and USDA jointly supported a resident SPS Advisor for the East Africa region based 

in  Kenya.    Under  this  program,  USDA  organized  various  plant  health,  animal  health,  and 

food  safety  activities,  which  included  the  training  of  pesticide  regulatory  officials  from 

Kenya  and  fourteen  other  Sub‐Saharan  African  countries  in  good  laboratory  practices  to 

strengthen the ability of these countries to meet U.S. and international standards.  The U.S. 

Government also trained Kenyan officials  from the Ministries of Agriculture and Trade on 

SPS  Agreement  obligations,  national  notification  authority  and  interagency  coordination 

and integration, and SPS enquiry point management. 
98 

Laos

The United States sponsored several SPS‐related trade capacity activities benefitting Laos, 

including  a  national  workshop  on  testing  and  diagnostic  protocols  for  highly  pathogenic 

avian influenza.  The workshop included participants from the Laos National Animal Health 

Center.  

Macedonia  

The  United  States,  in  conjunction  with  Tuskegee  University,  sponsored  five  Cochran 

Fellows  from  the  Macedonian  Ministry  of  Agriculture  for  training  on  various  animal 

diseases and on the implementation of disease control measures.  The Fellows received an 

overview of U.S. animal health  functions and capabilities  to gain  first‐hand knowledge on 

how to respond to disease outbreaks.  The training was designed to expose the Fellows to 

new  technologies,  techniques,  and  procedures  in  combating  and  eradicating  animal 

disease.   

Malaysia

The  United  States  funded  several  SPS‐related  activities  for  Malaysia,  including  trade 

capacity  building  workshops,  seminars,  conferences,  hands‐on  training  programs,  and 

visits.    The  United  States  sponsored  the  travel  of  a  Malaysian  delegation  to  the  United 

States  to gain a better understanding of  the U.S. biotech regulatory  framework and safety 

protocols for the proper management of animal, plant, and human health issues.  Members 

met with USDA regulators,  food policy specialists, agricultural biotechnologists, and other 

experts.   

Mexico

The  United  States  sponsored  several  SPS‐related  activities  for  Mexico.    USDA  provided 

training to its Mexican counterparts to help strengthen Mexican pest and disease exclusion 

efforts.    The  EPA  also  worked  with  its  Mexican  counterparts  to  harmonize  Mexican 

pesticide regulations with international and U.S. standards.  Additionally, the United States 

provided training to representatives from Mexico’s government, industry, and academia on 

topics  including  basic  environmental,  human  health,  and  sanitary  operational  practices 

necessary  for  the  production  of  safe,  wholesome  fruits  and  vegetables.    FDA’s  Food 

Microbiology Laboratory experts conducted training in food safety‐related rapid detection 

methods  for  over  170  people  from  the  private  and  government  sectors  at  workshops 

sponsored by the Mexican government.   

Nicaragua

FAS  and  FDA  provided  pesticide  residue  laboratory  training  to  Nicaraguan  ministry 

officials  on  laboratory  quality  assurance  systems,  pesticide  residue  analytical  capacities, 

and sampling, analysis, and instrumentation applications.   
99 

Pakistan

As part of a long‐term project, the United States has provided funding to Pakistan under a 

Food for Progress Grant to promote cold chain development.  APHIS also sponsored avian 

AI‐related  training  for  a  Pakistan  government  official  for  three  weeks  at  the  National 

Veterinary  Services  Laboratories  in  Ames,  Iowa.    The  effort  is  expected  to  increase  the 

technical capacity of the poultry health laboratory in Pakistan.  

  

Peru

The United States funded several SPS‐related programs for Peru including, but not limited 

to:  a  review  of  Peru’s  avian  influenza  program  to  help  prevent  the  spread  of  the  H5N1 

strain  of  the  disease;  food  defense  training  with  stakeholders  from  academia,  industry, 

government,  and  trade  associations  to  increase  the  capacity  of  participants  to  conduct 

vulnerability  assessments,  identify  food  defense  mitigation  techniques  and  develop  food 

defense plans, ultimately improving Peru's ability  to prevent intentional contamination of 

their  food  supply;  sponsoring  university instructors  to  visit  the United States  to  upgrade 

their technical subject knowledge, improve their teaching and research skills, and develop 

new  and  revised  SPS‐related  courses;  providing  visitors  from  Peru  with  overviews  of 

APHIS  operations at  ports  of entry in  the United States  to  strengthen  Peru’s institutional 

capacity  with  the  long‐term  goal  of  improving  trade  opportunities;  and  assisting  the 

Peruvian  government  in  drafting  project  work  plans  with  respect  to  food  safety,  animal 

health,  plant  health,  agricultural  research,  agricultural  curriculum  development,  and 

participation  in  international  standard  setting  organizations.    FDA,  in  collaboration  with 

FAS,  provided  on‐site  pesticide  residue  lab  training  to  Peruvian  officials  on  testing 

methodologies  for  detecting  pesticide  residues  in  foods  and  the  implementation  of 

laboratory standards for quality control and assurance. 

Tajikistan

The  United  States  funded  SPS‐related  trade  capacity  building  assistance  for  Tajikistan  in 

the  form  of  training  programs.    The  United  States  sponsored  four  Cochran  Fellows  from 

Tajikistan  (government  and  private  specialists)  to  attend  training  on  hygiene  and 

sanitation  practices  in  agriculture,  including  best  practices,  quality  assurance  methods, 

safety  regulations,  advanced  food  safety  standards,  HACCP  regulations,  and  government 

inspection and control.   

Tanzania

Beginning in 2010, and extending  through 2013,  the United States has been involved in a 

number  SPS‐related  projects  benefiting  Tanzania.    A  collaborative  effort  between  USAID 

and  USDA  supports  a  resident  SPS  Advisor  for  the  East  Africa  region.    In  2010,  the  SPS 

Advisor helped SPS agencies in Tanzania and elsewhere in the region develop institutional 
100 

capacity  for  science‐based  regulatory  systems consistent with international  standards.  A 

pesticide  regulatory  official  received  training  at  the  University  of  Missouri  under  the 

Borlaug  Fellowship  Program  in  SPS  enquiry  point  management,  pest  management,  and 

good laboratory practices. 

Turkey

The United States funded programs to help build Turkey’s SPS‐related trade capacity.  For 

example, the United States sponsored workshops for approximately 200 veterinarians and 

other  disease  control  officials  in  Turkey  on  basic  through  advanced  veterinary 

epidemiology, with a focus on brucellosis prevention, detection, and control.  

Vietnam

The United States funded several SPS‐related trade capacity building activities in Vietnam, 

including collaboration on animal health between U.S. and Vietnamese scientists to analyze 

viruses and vaccines for emerging influenza strains.  The United States also conducted food 

defense training with Vietnamese stakeholders from academia, industry, government, and 

trade  associations  to  increase  the  capacity  of  the  participants  to  conduct  vulnerability 

assessments, identify food defense mitigations, and develop food defense plans with a goal 

to improve Vietnam's ability to prevent intentional contamination of their food supply; and 

sponsored training for Vietnamese government officials on U.S. food safety systems, with a 

focus  on  risk  communication,  certification  systems,  and  the  enforcement  of  food  and 

agricultural standards.  The United States also funded and organized a national workshop 

on  testing  and  diagnostic  protocols  for  Streptococcus suis;  undertook  training  to  enable 

government and private sector officials  to participate more effectively in Codex activities; 

and trained Vietnamese government officials on the U.S. WTO SPS notification process and 

the  use  of  risk‐based  science  in  drafting  SPS  regulations,  in  order  to  facilitate  Vietnam’s 

participation in the WTO/SPS notification and comment process. 
1

APPENDIX

USTR received public comments regarding this report from the following entities: 

American Potato Trade Alliance 

Biotechnology Industry Organization 

Blue Diamond Growers 

California Cherry Advisory Board 

California Table Grape Commission 

Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. 

Egyptian General Organization for Veterinary Services 

National Potato Council 

National Milk Producers Federation & U.S. Dairy Export Council 

Northwest Horticultural Council 

Sunkist Growers 

U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee 

U.S. Meat Export Federation 

U.S. Wheat Associates 

USA Rice Federation 

USEC, Inc. 

Wine Institute, WineAmerica, and California Association of Winegrape Growers 

Yum! Restaurants, Intl.