2010 REPORT ON SANITARY 

AND PHYTOSANITARY 

MEASURES

U N I T E D S T A T E S T R A D E R E P R E S E N T A T I V E
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for the preparation of this 

report, which was written by USTR staff.  U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk gratefully 

acknowledges the contributions of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. 

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

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Interior, 

and State.  Ambassador Kirk would also like to thank Michelle Brinlee and Jennifer L. Ayers 

for their contributions.   

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

the world and from interested stakeholders.  Drafts of the report were circulated through 

the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee.   

    

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 (SPS Agreement) ...................................................................................... 5 

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

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

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

G.  Sources of Information about SPS Trade Barriers ...................................................................... 14 

H.  U.S. Government Engagement on Foreign SPS Trade Barriers ............................................. 15 

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

A.  H1N1 Influenza Virus .............................................................................................................................. 19 

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

C.  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) ................................................................................... 21 

D.  Avian Influenza (AI) ................................................................................................................................. 22 

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

F.  Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for Pesticides ........................................................................ 24 

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

Argentina ............................................................................................................................................................... 28 

Australia ................................................................................................................................................................. 28 

Bolivia ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30 

Brazil ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31 
Chile ......................................................................................................................................................................... 32 

China ........................................................................................................................................................................ 32 

Colombia ................................................................................................................................................................ 37 

Costa Rica .............................................................................................................................................................. 38 

Dominican Republic .......................................................................................................................................... 39 

Ecuador................................................................................................................................................................... 39 

Egypt ........................................................................................................................................................................ 40 

El Salvador ............................................................................................................................................................ 41 

Ethiopia .................................................................................................................................................................. 41 

European Union .................................................................................................................................................. 42 

Guatemala .............................................................................................................................................................. 48 

Gulf Cooperation Council ................................................................................................................................ 48 

Honduras ............................................................................................................................................................... 48 

Hong Kong ............................................................................................................................................................. 49 

India ......................................................................................................................................................................... 49 

Israel ........................................................................................................................................................................ 51 

Jamaica .................................................................................................................................................................... 52 

Japan ........................................................................................................................................................................ 52 

Kazakhstan ............................................................................................................................................................ 56 

Kenya ....................................................................................................................................................................... 56 

Kuwait ..................................................................................................................................................................... 56 

Mexico ..................................................................................................................................................................... 57 

Morocco .................................................................................................................................................................. 58 

New Zealand ......................................................................................................................................................... 58 

Nicaragua ............................................................................................................................................................... 59 
Norway ................................................................................................................................................................... 59 

Peru .......................................................................................................................................................................... 60 

Philippines ............................................................................................................................................................ 61 

Russia ...................................................................................................................................................................... 62 

Saudi Arabia ......................................................................................................................................................... 65 

Singapore ............................................................................................................................................................... 65 

South Africa .......................................................................................................................................................... 66 

South African Development Community ................................................................................................. 66 

South Korea .......................................................................................................................................................... 67 

Sri Lanka ................................................................................................................................................................ 69 

Switzerland ........................................................................................................................................................... 69 

Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) ................................................................................................................................. 70 

Thailand ................................................................................................................................................................. 71 

Turkey ..................................................................................................................................................................... 72 

Ukraine ................................................................................................................................................................... 73 

United Arab Emirates ....................................................................................................................................... 74 

Uruguay .................................................................................................................................................................. 74 

Venezuela .............................................................................................................................................................. 75 

Vietnam .................................................................................................................................................................. 75 

V.  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ......................................................................................................................... 77 

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................. 91 

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 

CARICOM        Caribbean Community and Common Market 

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 Inspection Service 

FTA        Free Trade Agreement 

GCC        Gulf Cooperation Council 

HACCP        Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points 

HPAI        Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza 

IICA          Inter‐American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture 

IPPC        International Plant Protection Convention 

LPAI        Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza 

MRL        Maximum Residue Limit 

NAFTA        North American Free Trade Agreement 

NTE        National Trade Estimate 

OIE        World Organization for Animal Health 

PRA        Pest Risk Assessment 

PRT        Pathogen Reduction Treatment 

SADC        South African Development Community 

SPS        Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

SRM        Specified Risk Material 

STDF        Standards and Trade Development Facility 

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 

1

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 2010 Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Report) is a new, 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 are hard to detect and 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 the H1N1 influenza virus, biotechnology, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), 

avian influenza (AI), ractopamine, and maximum residue limits (MRLs) on pesticides.  

The heart 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, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, 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

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 the 

actions underway 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 2010 SPS Report on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Report) serves these 

goals.  This report is a new, specialized report dedicated to describing significant and 

unwarranted SPS foreign barriers.  Many of these measures previously have been 
4

addressed 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 2010

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 (2010 Report on Technical Barriers to

Trade) 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 

heart 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 

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 addition, 

                                                           

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

governments often require live animals to be subject to veterinary check‐ups or quarantine 

before entering the country.   

  

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, in 2009 a number of countries 

banned imports of U.S. pork and pork products, citing threats of the H1N1 influenza virus, 

despite the fact that there is no evidence that the virus is transmitted by food.  Similarly, 

many countries have used the threat of avian influenza 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. producers export $98.6 billion dollars worth of 

agricultural products annually.  These exports support approximately 1 million U.S. jobs 

both 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 (SPS Agreement)

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 

introduction, 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, or 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 a 

risk assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, to assess whether a particular 

substance or product, including a process or production method, poses any risk 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 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 chooses a level of protection that is higher than the level of 

protection that the international standard achieves, or if there is a scientific justification.   

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 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.  The United States submits, on average, 251 SPS 

notifications per year.  

SPS Committee  

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

Committee) to provide a regular forum 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.  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 on the 

agenda.  Committee members routinely discuss matters related to how the SPS Agreement 

is being applied and implemented and specific trade concerns, such as the H1N1 influenza 

virus and pesticide residue level restrictions.  Members also discuss and develop 

procedures and guidelines that help governments implement their obligations under the 

SPS Agreement.  Recently, the SPS Committee adopted new guidelines to implement rights 

and obligations dealing with special and differential treatment and regionalization.  All 

procedures and guidelines that the SPS Committee establishes must be adopted by 

consensus.     

The United States is an active participant at SPS Committee meetings and regularly raises 

issues at meetings before all the Members.  In 2009, for example, the U.S. delegation 

vigorously engaged with the more than 30 countries that had banned U.S. pork products 

due to unfounded fears over the H1N1 influenza virus.  As discussed in section III.A, only a 

few trading partners continue to impose H1N1‐related restrictions against U.S. pork 

exports.  The U.S. delegation also raised its long‐standing concern over Japan’s enforcement 

of certain pesticide regulations.  As discussed in section IV, Japan and the United States 

signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding this issue in July 2009.
9

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 with respect to capacity building and technical cooperation 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. 

D. Other SPS­Related International Agreements

U.S. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)

Most of the free trade agreements that the United States has signed since the establishment 

of the WTO in 1995 include an SPS chapter.2  While those chapters do not impose new or 

additional substantive rules or obligations, many of these agreements establish SPS 

committees that provide a forum for the parties’ trade and regulatory authorities to resolve 

contentious SPS issues, consult on SPS matters that are pending before relevant 

international organizations, and coordinate technical cooperation programs.   

For instance, in the U.S.‐Australia FTA SPS Committee, the United States and Australia have 

worked together to secure market access for U.S. table grapes in several Australian states. 3   

This is a positive step forward, but additional work remains to be done, as discussed in 

section IV.  In 2009, the United States and Chile used their FTA SPS Committee to forge 

common policy positions to promote adoption of an international maximum residue level 

for ractopamine at the Codex Commission.   

The U.S. – Bahrain, U.S. – Morocco, and U.S. – Oman FTAs also create fora through which the 

respective agreements’ ministerial‐level Joint Committees periodically discuss SPS matters.   

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)  

Because the NAFTA entered into force before the establishment of the WTO, and thus 

before countries’ SPS measures were subject to multilateral SPS disciplines, the NAFTA has 

                                                           

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 Central America – Dominican Republic – 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.   

3 The U.S. – Australia FTA also establishes a Standing Technical Working Group on Animal and Plant Health 

Measures.  
10

a much more detailed SPS chapter than other U.S. 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.  For example, during the 2009 H1N1 

outbreak, the Parties worked together with the OIE to ensure that no Party would require 

H1N1‐related certification language for imports of live swine. 

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.   

In January 2007, EPA and Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) 

announced the acceptance of the first NAFTA label for a conventional agricultural pesticide 

known as Far‐Go Herbicide in the United States and Avadex MicroActive Herbicide in 

Canada.  (A NAFTA label certifies that the pesticide has been approved for use on certain 

fruits or vegetables and specifies instructions concerning application.)  Since then, six 

additional NAFTA labels have been approved.  The development of a NAFTA label 

represents the culmination of years of work on pesticide regulatory harmonization that has 

been conducted by the NAFTA TWG.  The United States remains committed to continued 

work with NAFTA partners to advance such pesticide harmonization efforts. 

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 
11

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.  In 2009, Codex adopted more than 30 new 

international standards, codes of practice, and guidelines, such as criteria for Salmonella

and bacteria in powdered formula for children six months or older, as well as new 

microbiological testing and environmental monitoring standards for Listeria

monocytogenes in ready‐to‐eat foods.  The United States was actively involved with the 

development of these food safety standards and has encouraged their adoption by trading 

partners.

Another important area supported by the United States has been OIE’s work in 

promulgating science‐based guidelines in the event that a potentially dangerous strain of 

avian influenza is detected.  According to these guidelines, detections of low pathogenicity 

strains influenza viruses should not trigger trade restrictions, and the application of import 

measures with respect to poultry and poultry products are justified only when highly 

pathogenic strains are detected in domestic poultry.  The OIE guidelines further delineate 

when trade in such products may resume.  

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)

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 

fills a variety of roles in the engagement of trade barriers generally, including SPS ones, 

such as being the lead negotiator on bilateral and multilateral agreements and lead counsel 

in all WTO disputes.  
12

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)

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)

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 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)  

  

APHIS works to prevent the entry, establishment, or spread of animal and plant pests and 

noxious weeds in the United States, thus serving to ensure an abundant, high‐quality, and 

varied food supply.  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.  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. 
13

Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

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)

EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)4 regulates pesticides 

use in the United States to protect human health and the environment; establishes 

maximum residue limits 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.  OPPTS has the lead role in coordinating EPA activities with respect to foreign SPS 

measures, particularly pesticide maximum residue limits 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 (FDA)

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 consumption by animals.  FDA plays 

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

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

active member of all other SPS interagency teams. 

U.S. Department of Commerce

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Trade Agreements Compliance (TAC) Program 

coordinates efforts and resources to systematically monitor, investigate, and ensure 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 access.  

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

barriers, as well as all matters at issue at the SPS Committee.  In addition, 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 80 

countries around the world.  The Department of Commerce is a member of the U.S. 

                                                           

4 EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances will be renamed the Office of Chemical Safety 

and Pollution Prevention as of April 22, 2010. 
14

delegation to the WTO SPS Committee and is an active member of all other SPS interagency 

teams. 

U.S. Department of State

Unnecessary barriers to agricultural trade can create friction in U.S. diplomatic relations 

and diminish U.S. efforts to improve global food security.  Accordingly, 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.  

The State Department’s Economic Bureau, as well as its diplomatic posts around the world, 

regularly provide information on foreign SPS measures.   

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 2009 

alone, the interagency group reviewed 782 notifications by 57 countries and provided 

comments to these trading partners on 212 proposed or in force SPS measures.  

           Table 1.  Number of Foreign SPS Measures Reviewed by the United States   

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

addressed requirements for live animals and fish (and their products, including dairy 

products); and almost one‐quarter were for measures that introduced new standards or 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009
15

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 77 comments, South Korea (18), Brazil (17), Taiwan (14), 

and Bahrain (13). 

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

number of actions, including the following:  change product certification requirements; 

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

reduce certification requirements; delay implementation of a measure; and reduce testing 

fees.  The United States, of course, 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 U.S. interagency provides comments on SPS measures that 

are 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.   
16

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

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

senior regulatory and trade agency representatives, or may decide to raise the matter 

during a regularly scheduled bilateral meeting with the trading partner at the WTO SPS 

Committee meeting in Geneva.  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.  Alternatively, 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 – Hormones5

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 an MOU that will enable 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, 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 tons in each of the first three years, 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 will eliminate all sanctions during the fourth year.  

                                                           

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

The MOU also provides for the two sides to refrain from further WTO litigation with 

respect to EU's beef ban for at least 18 months.  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 response, Japan abolished its varietal testing requirement.  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 

was 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.  In recent 

months, however, the EU has shown progress by approving a number of long‐delayed 

applications. 

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 used in the United States that both 
18

U.S. and European scientists have judged to be safe.  The United States will continue to 

pursue this matter through WTO dispute settlement proceedings in 2010.   

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 2008, the U.S. Government obligated $6.6 million in SPS trade 

capacity building assistance, and has provided a total of $70 million since 2000 for this 

purpose.  This assistance takes the form of training seminars, pest surveillance efforts, 

laboratory training, advice on drafting rules and regulations, staff internships and details, 

and data sharing.   U.S. technical assistance is discussed in greater detail in Section V. 
19

III. MAJOR CROSS­CUTTING SPS ISSUES

This section of the report discusses certain important SPS issues that restrict U.S. 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:  H1N1 influenza virus, biotechnology, 

bovine spongiform encephalopathy, avian influenza, ractopamine, and maximum residue 

levels for pesticides.  Individual country reports in section IV provide further details on 

these barriers in specific markets. 

A. H1N1 Influenza Virus

In April 2009, an outbreak of a new strain of human H1N1 influenza virus, sometimes 

referred to as the “swine flu,” occurred in Mexico and soon spread to other countries, 

including the United States.  In June 2009, the WHO declared that the H1N1 influenza virus 

had attained the level of a global pandemic.  In response to the appearance of H1N1, more 

than 30 countries prohibited imports of U.S. swine, pork, and pork products.  Countries that 

imposed bans included Bahrain, China, Croatia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 

Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Serbia, South Korea, Thailand, and Ukraine, among 

others.  Cumulatively, the countries who placed H1N1 bans on U.S. pork during 2009 had 

accounted for more than $900 million worth of trade in pork and pork products in 2008.  If 

these countries maintained their initial restrictions throughout 2009, these bans would 

have resulted in significant loss of trade.  

Following the imposition of these import restrictions, the three major international health 

organizations – the WHO, OIE, and FAO – together with the WTO, issued an unprecedented 

joint statement and guidance.  The joint statement, published on April 30, 2009, 

emphasized that pork import bans based on concerns over H1N1 were unjustified given 

the absence of scientific evidence indicating that the virus could be transmitted by eating 

properly handled and prepared pork and other swine products. 

USTR worked closely with other U.S. Government agencies to lift these bans, emphasizing 

to our trading partners that U.S. agricultural products, including pork and live swine, are 

safe and that swine flu‐related trade restrictions against such products are inconsistent 

with the policy recommendations of international public health, food safety, and animal 

health bodies.  Senior members of the Obama Administration urged these governments to 

ensure that their food safety measures were based on scientific evidence and consistent 

with their international obligations.  

Today, due in large part to these efforts, very few countries continue to block imports of 

U.S. swine, pork, and pork products based on concerns over H1N1 transmission.  The 

United States continues to work bilaterally with these trading partners as well as through 

the WTO SPS Committee to lift the remaining H1N1 bans on U.S. swine, pork, and pork 

products. 
20

B. Biotechnology

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

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

genetic engineering and traditional breeding techniques.  These tools may be used to alter 

living organisms to make or modify products, to improve plants or animals, or to develop 

micro‐organisms for specific agricultural uses.   

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 25 countries in 2009.  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 2009, 91 percent of soybean, 85 percent of corn, and 88 percent of cotton area 

planted in the United States were from biotech varieties.  New genetically engineered crops 

and products, such as those intended for pharmaceuticals, phyto‐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 dietary risk assessments have shown no food safety concerns and these 

biotech products have proven safety records.  These unjustified import bans and 

restrictions applied to U.S. biotech products are discussed in the country‐specific sections 

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

on foods containing or derived from biotech products.  Those requirements create the 

impression that the labeled food is different from or less safe than a comparable, unlabeled 

food not containing or derived from biotech products.  The labeling restrictions are 

addressed more fully in the TBT Report. 

The United States is actively engaged with trading partners in seeking to remove these 

unwarranted trade barriers, and more broadly, 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 safety of 

biotech crops and supported the development of Codex 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.   
21

C. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)  

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 2009, the number of cases had decreased to 70 cases globally, only two of which 

occurred outside of Europe.   Only three animals in the United States have tested 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. 

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.  Based on a review of the United States’ interlocking BSE‐related controls, in May 

2007 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.  For controlled risk countries, such as the United States, SRMs are 

the tonsils and distal ileum of all cattle regardless of age and the brain, eyes, spinal cord, 

skull, and vertebral column from cattle over 30 months of age.  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 against the transmission of 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 
22

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 2009, U.S. beef and beef product exports had rebounded, totaling 

nearly $3.08 billion, which was just $744 million short of pre‐BSE levels.   

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

world.  Section IV of the SPS Report identifies 28 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. 

Restoring full access for U.S. beef and beef products consistent with 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 give the political sensitivity of 

the issue in some countries.    

D. Avian Influenza (AI)  

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 the strain’s ability to produce disease 

and on the severity of the illness the strain may cause in poultry:  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 little threat to human 

health.  

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.  All HPAI strains, regardless of 
23

where they are detected must be notified to the OIE.  The HPAI H5N1 strain has spread 

rapidly in some regions of the world in recent years and affected human populations.  

Because of the potential health effects of HPAI, particularly the H5N1 strain, the OIE 

requires governments to report notifiable detections of AI within 24 hours.  In addition, 

LPAI H5 and H7 strains detected in domestic poultry must also be notified to the OIE due to 

concerns that these strains could mutate to HPAI.   

U.S. AI­Related Controls

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

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

currently exists in the United States.  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 occurs in live bird markets and commercial 

flocks.  Additionally, any birds that show signs of illness are tested for HPAI.  Finally, 

federal officials and their state and industry partners have also worked to establish an 

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

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.  For example, India prohibits imports of most U.S. poultry and poultry products (as 

well as live swine) for AI‐related concerns.  China has banned imports of poultry and 

poultry products from six U.S. states.  Other trading partners, including Ecuador, Egypt, 

Kazakhstan, and Kuwait, have also banned U.S. poultry and poultry products based on 

concerns over AI.   

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

U.S. poultry trade.  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 trading partners 

concerned.  The U.S. Government has successfully had 36 AI‐related bans lifted since 2008.  
24

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 authorities in India, China, and other 

countries have imposed.   

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 has since 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 countries around the world, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, and 

Mexico.   

The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), which provides 

scientific advice to Codex on food additives, contaminants, and residues of veterinary 

drugs, issued a report recommending the establishment of a maximum residue level (MRL) 

for ractopamine in animal feed.  The report serves as further scientific evidence that this 

product is safe.  Based on the report, the Codex Commission is in the final stages of an 

eight‐step process aimed at establishing a recommended MRL for ractopamine in pork 

production.   

At the July 2009 meeting, the Codex Commission did not adopt the MRL recommended by 

JECFA due to opposition from the EU and China.  However, the Commission agreed that 

JEFCA, as the international expert scientific advisory body to Codex for veterinary drug 

residues, would review a ractopamine study put forward by China.  The next opportunity 

for the Codex Commission to approve an MRL for ractopamine is July 2010. 

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 residues of ractopamine.  These measures 

pose a significant barrier to trade for U.S. pork products. 

F. Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for Pesticides

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

residues (generally expressed as parts per million or mg/kg of residue 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. 
25

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.   

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

trading partners to share data and assist them in establishing their own science‐based 

MRLs.  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 pesticides 

in all three markets.   

In general, the United States believes that the creation of positive pesticide MRL lists or 

systems that defer to the 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.   

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.  For example, in 2009, U.S. celery and 

strawberry growers were unable to ship their products to Japan because the regulatory 

authorities had set an unwarranted default MRL of 0.01 ppm until a permanent MRL was 

established.   

As discussed more specifically in the country reports that follow, a variety of countries 

have established pesticide MRLs without due regard to science, either setting MRLs at 

unjustifiably low thresholds or failing to set an MRL at all where Codex and/or the United 

States have established one.  This has created significant trade barriers for U.S. 

horticultural exports.  The MRL policies in the EU, Japan, and Taiwan are of particular 

concern.   
26
27

IV. COUNTRY REPORTS  

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

included in these reports are the product 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 issues for inclusion in the SPS Report reflects 

a considered process that is based on the U.S. Government’s understanding and analysis of 

those measures.  The measures and practices that the country reports identify 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.6   

In each instance, the U.S. Government’s goal is to work as vigorously and expeditiously as 

possible to resolve the concern.  The tools the U.S. Government uses vary depending on the 

particular issue and circumstances.  As reflected in the country reports, 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, stakeholders raised a number of 

new SPS concerns.  In some cases, USTR lacked sufficient information about those concerns 

at the time of publication to include them in the report.  For those issues, USTR will seek to 

compile additional information, including by following up with stakeholders, U.S. 

Embassies, and other Federal agencies.  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.   

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.   

                                                           

6 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

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.  Six of 

these measures are described in Section III of this report.  The U.S. Government adopts a 

strategic approach to measures of this kind, deploying resources where they can be most 

effective.  In some instances, the U.S. Government elects to focus its efforts on a few 

countries where the 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.  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. 

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 causing fire blight).  The United States has 

submitted technical information to Argentine plant health officials documenting the low 

risk of transmitting the bacteria on mature symptomless apple and pear fruit and will 

continue to work with Argentine officials to address the issue.

AUSTRALIA

Food Safety

Poultry

The United States believes that Australia’s import risk assessment (IRA) for 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 (IBD) are present in both countries, yet Australia’s IRA concludes 

that the U.S. strain is exotic to Australia, citing a research study that, in the U.S. view, had 
29

not followed standard procedures to detect differences in immunogenicity (the effect of the 

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

stringent than those recommended by the OIE and do not appear to be based on science.   

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 import 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 individual country risk 

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

Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).  Biosecurity Australia (BA) also has announced that it 

must conduct a separate import risk analysis on each exporting country to address animal 

quarantine issues.  The United States is concerned that this decision will likely result in 

further delays in the approval process that is required for the U.S. beef and beef products to 

regain market access.  The United States has already raised its concerns with Australia.  

The United States expects to apply to both BA and FSANZ for U.S. beef and beef product 

access in the near future.   

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

Plant Health

Stone fruit  

Australia bans 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).  Australia published its draft import risk assessment in April 2008, 

and the United States submitted formal comments in June 2008.  Australia published its 

final import risk assessment for access of U.S. stone fruit (peaches, nectarines, plums, and 

apricots) in March 2010.  The two countries continue an active dialogue on implementation 

of Australia’s final policy.  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 

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 its 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 
30

currently drafted, it will continue to prevent the commercial export of U.S. apples to 

Australia.   

New Zealand requested a WTO panel in 2007 to determine whether Australia’s fire blight 

mitigation measures as they apply to New Zealand apples comply with Australia’s 

obligations under the WTO SPS Agreement.  The United States is an active third party in the 

case and is monitoring the litigation 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. grapes.  This 

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

seven years of California table grape exports to Australia.  Australia has indicated that it 

would complete a risk assessment to initiate the process access for California table grapes 

to gain access to Western Australia.  The United States will continue discussions with 

Australia as it moves forward with this process.   

Maximum Residue Limits  

Certain U.S. agricultural products are prevented entry into Australia due to the applications 

of pesticides that are legal in the United States but are not approved in Australia.  Australia 

and the United States are working together to address this issue.    

See section III.F for an explanation of the MRL trade issue. 

BOLIVIA

Food Safety and Animal Health

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Bolivia continues to ban 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.  

Bolivia and the other three Andean Community (CAN) member countries (Colombia, 

Ecuador and Peru) maintain that CAN rules prevent them from lifting their BSE‐related 

restrictions.   

With regard to live cattle, in December 2007, the United States invited each CAN member 

country to send a technical representative to the United States to initiate the approval 

process for the import of U.S. cattle.  Bolivia, along with Ecuador, Peru and a CAN 
31

representative, participated in the resulting August 2008 trip organized by USDA to resolve 

issues that would facilitate the resumption of U.S. cattle imports.   

In May 2009, the CAN published a proposed risk assessment stipulating that only live 

animals under 24 months of age could be imported.  This proposed risk assessment departs 

from OIE guidelines.  In August 2009, the United States submitted technical comments on 

the proposed risk assessment; these are currently under review by Bolivia and the other 

CAN member countries.  

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. 

BRAZIL

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Brazil bans the importation 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.  In late 2008, Brazil notified 

the WTO of a draft regulation that establishes sanitary requirements for importation of 

ruminants and ruminant products from countries affected by BSE.  The United States 

provided technical comments on the draft regulation and requested that Brazil realign its 

import regulation with OIE guidelines.  Also in late 2008, the United States provided 

technical information to Brazil on U.S. control and surveillance systems for BSE.  The 

United States continues to engage Brazil to open its market for all live cattle, beef, and beef 

products from the United States on the basis of 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 requires plant‐by‐plant inspections to approve a plant to export U.S. pork to Brazil.  

This approach is extremely 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.   
32

CHILE

Food Safety

Pork  

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

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

exports to Chile. 

The United States has proposed less trade restrictive risk mitigation measures to achieve 

the level of trichinae protection that Chile is seeking.  The United States maintains high 

biosecurity protocols and modern pork production systems that serve to limit the 

incidence of trichinosis in the United States to extremely low levels.  The United States will 

continue to work with regulatory authorities in Chile to resolve this trade concern. 

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

In December 2003, Chile banned all U.S. beef and beef products, live cattle, and pet food 

containing beef due to the detection of a BSE positive animal in the United States in 2003.  

In July 2005, Chile agreed to partially re‐open the market for 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 for countries determined to be “controlled risk” for 

BSE, but continues to maintain unjustified restrictions on 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, beef, and beef products from the United 

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

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

CHINA

Food Safety

2009 Food Safety Law

China has enormous market potential for high quality U.S.‐processed foods, but exporters 

are challenged by China’s regulatory structure and processes, including confusion about 

authorities and responsibilities.  In response to a series of high‐profile domestic food safety 

incidents, China implemented a new Food Safety Law on June 1, 2009.  China also released 

dozens of implementing regulations under the Food Safety Law that affected a wide array 

of products.   
33

The U.S. Government and U.S. industry provided comments to China about the Food Safety 

Law.  In response, China exempted U.S. exporters from changes to bulk and retail labeling 

requirements; waived certain meat and poultry inspection requirements; and permitted 

the continued use of pre‐existing standards for processed foods.  This engagement 

prevented an estimated $95‐million drop in exports of U.S. consumer‐ready food exports 

due to labeling concerns; prevented U.S. exporters from incurring nearly $3 million in 

reformulation and repackaging charges; and achieved the release of $1.5 million of 

detained U.S. goods.  

However, China continues to issue additional implementing measures, the scope and 

details of which are often unclear.  The United States is concerned that these new 

requirements may unjustifiably decrease or delay new product introduction into the 

marketplace.  Accordingly, the United States will continue to work with China on 

implementation of its new food safety law to ensure continued market access and to 

encourage consistency with science, international standards, and international obligations. 

H1N1 Restrictions

China is one of the remaining countries to ban U.S. pork products due to H1N1 concerns.  In 

October 2009, Ambassador Kirk, Secretary 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 agreed 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.  Pork 

trade is expected to resume immediately once both sides finalize the necessary export 

documentation.

See section III.A for an explanation of the H1N1 trade issue. 

Ractopamine

China bans the import of pork containing any residue of the growth hormone 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 the hormone.  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. 

At the September 16, 2009 meeting of the JCCT Agricultural Working Group, U.S. officials 

requested that China 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 final decision by Codex.  Accordingly, even if China rescinds its 

current H1N1‐related ban on U.S. pork imports, U.S. exports will continue to be 

unnecessarily restricted to ractopamine‐free pork so long as China does not adopt an MRL 
34

on ractopamine.  The United States continue to engage 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 bacteria, E. coli and 

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

these pathogens appears to lack a scientific basis.  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 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 its 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.  

The United States continues to work to address this issue with China and has pressed China 

to reconsider and negotiate an appropriate protocol to 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. 

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.   
35

U.S. exports of protein‐free tallow have still not resumed as U.S. and Chinese officials have 

not yet reached agreement on provisions of a protocol.  China’s protein‐free requirement is 

difficult to comply with and appears inconsistent with the science as well as 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.   

Poultry

China currently bans poultry from Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Texas, and 

Virginia due to detections of LPAI in those states.  Additionally, China bans the importation 

of U.S.‐origin poultry products that are transshipped through these six states.   

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

inconsistent with OIE guidelines, which do not call for trade restrictions where LPAI 

detections have occurred.  The United States continues to push for Chinese compliance 

with OIE guidelines and a total lifting of all bans on the importation of U.S.‐origin poultry 

and poultry products due to these LPAI detections.  The U.S. Government regularly raises 

this issue in discussions with China. 

See section III.D 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.  Since this protocol was signed, about 135 U.S. facilities (70 of which are pet food 

facilities) have been approved by the United States to export products to China.  However, 

China’s Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) maintains a duplicative, and cumbersome, product‐

based registration process for facilities that produce animal feed (including pet food) that 

has prevented products from these facilities from entering the Chinese market.  Under 

MOA’s registration process, facilities that desire to export U.S. pet food to China must first 

have U.S. authorities certify that the facilities meet the Chinese requirements in accordance 

with the veterinary health protocol.  Second, facilities must register their products with 

China’s MOA. 

China originally claimed that the MOA requirements would apply only to domestic Chinese 

facilities, but is now applying the requirements to foreign facilities, which presents a 

significant barrier to U.S. pet food, animal feed, and feed additive exports.  China has thus 

far not been receptive to USDA requests to either 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 in bilateral fora.  
36

Plant Health

Apples

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

Oregon, and Washington.  In November 1999, U.S. officials requested China’s General 

Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) to allow imports 

of additional apple varieties from those states, and to permit imports of apples from 

California.   

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

reviewed scientific information indicating that there is no evidence that mature 

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

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

the three approved states.  Further, China has not provided a PRA for California‐origin 

apples.   

Pears

China prohibits the importation of U.S. pears produced in the Pacific Northwest region due 

to concerns over fire blight.  In May 2007, U.S. officials provided AQSIQ with research 

confirming that mature asymptomatic pear fruit are not a pathway for fire blight and they 

supplemented this with additional information in December 2009.  AQSIQ has initiated a 

risk assessment and is reviewing additional information the United States regarding pest 

management.    

Potatoes

China bans the import of U.S. potatoes due to concerns regarding the spread of certain 

pests.  The United States has been waiting for AQSIQ to share the results of its PRA of 

Pacific Northwest potatoes.  In 2000, the United States officially requested China to allow 

imports of fresh potatoes from Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.  AQSIQ has not yet 

completed its risk assessment.  The U.S. Government continues to engage China on this 

issue, including during SPS Committee meetings. 

Strawberries

In 2008, China granted special permission for importations of fresh strawberry fruit from 

California in advance of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.  U.S. growers successfully shipped 

approximately 2,168 pounds of strawberries to China, and the shipments raised no 

apparent concerns.  After the Olympics were concluded, however, China refused to accept 

any additional shipments from the United States.  The United States will continue to press 

Chinese authorities to complete their review of the U.S. Government’s request for 

permanent market access.  In the interim, the United States has requested that China grant 
37

temporary access (similar to 2008 Olympic Games) during the Shanghai World Expo, which 

will take place from May 1 – October 31, 2010.   

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.   

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. 

raw poultry.  Such a zero tolerance standard for these pathogens appears to lack a scientific 

basis.  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.  The 

United States will continue to work with Colombia to address U.S. concerns about these 

requirements. 

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.  Colombia and the other 

three CAN member countries (Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru) maintain that CAN rules prevent 

them from lifting their BSE‐related restrictions. 

In December 2007, the United States invited each CAN member country to send a 

representative to the United States to initiate the approval process for the import of U.S. 
38

cattle.  Colombia did not attend, but the other CAN member countries and a CAN 

representative did participate in the resulting August 2008 trip organized by USDA to 

resolve issues that would facilitate the resumption of U.S. cattle imports.   

In May 2009, the CAN published a proposed risk assessment stipulating that only live 

animals under 24 months of age could be imported.  This proposed risk assessment departs 

from OIE guidelines.  In August 2009, the United States submitted technical comments on 

the proposed risk assessment; these are currently under review by Colombia and the other 

CAN member countries. 

The U.S. Government 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, the United States and Colombia formalized their recognition of the equivalence of 

the U.S. poultry inspection systems, and reached agreement on the specific contents of U.S. 

sanitary certificates accompanying U.S. poultry and poultry products exported to Colombia.  

However, the Ministry of Agriculture through its SPS regulatory agency, the Colombian 

Agricultural Institute (ICA), has imposed separate import requirements related to AI that 

do not follow OIE recommendations.  U.S. officials have expressed concerns about these 

requirements, which do not appear to be supported by science, and have resulted in a ban 

on imports of poultry and poultry products from a number of U.S. states.  

COSTA RICA

Food Safety

Poultry

In April 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.  In response to the notification, the United States outlined a series of 

concerns that some of the proposed microbiological criteria (specifically zero tolerance for 

Salmonella on poultry meat) appeared to lack a scientific basis, and had the potential to be 

a trade barrier for U.S. poultry exports.  In February 2009, U.S. officials met with Central 

American government authorities to further discuss their zero tolerance policies.  The 

United States and Costa Rica are cooperating on setting a science‐based standard for 

Salmonella in raw poultry through prevalence survey training courses.  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. 
39

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC  

Food Safety

Poultry

In April 2008, the Dominican Republic notified the WTO of its intent to establish 

microbiological criteria for a number of foods.  In response to the notification, the United 

States outlined concerns that some of the proposed microbiological criteria (specifically 

zero tolerance for Salmonella) appear to lack a scientific basis, and had the potential to be a 

trade barrier for U.S. exports.  The United States will continue to work with the Dominican 

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

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

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

30 months of age due to concerns about BSE.  In August 2009, U.S. and Dominican officials 

discussed market access for all U.S. beef and beef products as well as the Dominican 

Republic’s import requirements for U.S. live cattle.  In October 2009, the Dominican 

Republic allowed market access for the entry of live cattle from the United States over 30 

months of age, but it continues to ban U.S. beef and beef products from animals of any age.  

The United States continues to engage the Dominican Republic to provide full market 

access 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. 

ECUADOR

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Ecuador continues to ban 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.  

Ecuador and the other three CAN member countries (Bolivia, Colombia and Peru) maintain 

that CAN rules prevent them from lifting their BSE‐related restrictions. 

With regard to live cattle, in December 2007, the United States invited each CAN member 

country to send a technical representative to the United States to initiate the approval 

process for the import of U.S. cattle.  Ecuador, along with Bolivia, Peru and a CAN 

representative, participated in the resulting August 2008 trip organized by USDA to resolve 

issues that would facilitate the resumption of U.S. cattle imports.   
40

In May 2009, the CAN published a proposed risk assessment stipulating that only live 

animals under 24 months of age could be imported.  This proposed risk assessment departs 

from OIE guidelines.  In August 2009, the United States submitted technical comments on 

the proposed risk assessment; these are currently under review by Ecuador and the other 

CAN member countries. 

The U.S. Government 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  

Ecuador continues to ban imports of poultry products and live animals from Arkansas and 

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

which do not appear to be science‐based and consistent with OIE guidelines given that 

these states are currently free of HPAI.   

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

EGYPT

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Egypt imposes strict import requirements on U.S. beef and beef products based on 

concerns about BSE.  Egypt only accepts 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.  These requirements do not appear to be science‐based or consistent 

with the OIE guidelines for trading with a "controlled risk” country.    

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, 

which remain prohibited, would be competitive in Egypt’s market.  The United States had 
41

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.D for an explanation of the AI trade issue. 

EL SALVADOR

Food Safety

Poultry

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

intent to establish microbiological criteria for a number of foods.  In response to the 

notification, the United States outlined a series of concerns that some of the proposed 

microbiological criteria (specifically zero tolerance for Salmonella on poultry meat) 

appeared to lack a scientific basis, and had the potential to create a trade barrier for U.S. 

poultry exports.  In February 2009, U.S. officials met with Central American government 

authorities to further discuss their zero tolerance policies.  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

El Salvador continues to prohibit imports of U.S. beef and beef products from cattle over 30 

months of age, as well as live cattle over 30 months of age due to concerns about BSE.  El 

Salvador also requires that any cattle shipped from the United States to El Salvador must 

have been born and raised in the United States.  The United States continues to engage with 

El Salvador 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. 

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.  U.S. officials have engaged with 

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. 
42

EUROPEAN UNION

Biotechnology

Since 1998, the EU’s Council of Ministers has not assembled a qualified majority of EU 

Member States in support of the approval of any agricultural biotechnology food, livestock 

feed, or seed product, even though the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has offered 

a positive safety assessment.  In addition, while the European Commission has granted 

approval for the import and marketing of a limited number of biotechnology products 

under its own authority, the EU has approved only three biotechnology products for 

cultivation since 1998.  In recent months, however, the EU has shown progress by 

approving a number of long‐delayed applications.   

In May 2003, the United States initiated a WTO dispute settlement proceeding regarding 

the EU’s de facto moratorium on approvals of biotechnology products and the existence of 

individual Member State marketing prohibitions on biotechnology products that had 

previously been approved by the EU.  The WTO panel issued its report on September 29, 

2006, finding that EU and Member State measures were inconsistent with WTO rules.  The 

WTO Dispute Settlement Body adopted the report on November 21, 2006.  The Parties 

agreed on a one‐year "reasonable period of time" (RPT), expiring on November 21, 2007, 

for the EU to come into compliance with the Dispute Settlement Body’s recommendations 

and rulings; the RPT was subsequently extended to January 11, 2008.  When the RPT 

expired, the United States took the first steps toward a resumption of dispute settlement 

procedures, submitting a request to the WTO for authority to suspend 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.  U.S. and European Commission officials have held several rounds 

of consultations on the EU’s biotechnology application backlog.  

Even when the EU approves a particular biotechnology product, EU biotechnology 

legislation provides that individual Member States may invoke their own national bans, 

under a so‐called "safeguard" clause.  The WTO panel found nine of those Members State 

bans to be WTO‐inconsistent.  Nonetheless, in the years since the initiation of the WTO 

dispute, Member States have continued to adopt additional bans.  Although each ban that 

has been reviewed by the EFSA has been determined to lack scientific justification, the 

Commission has been unable to secure the qualified majority support required to lift the 

bans.   

Continuing delays in the EU’s biotechnology product approval process exacerbate the 

already substantial disparity between U.S. and EU approvals, creating further trade 

problems.  Under the EU’s implementation of its biotechnology legislation, the presence in 

U.S. crop shipments of traces of biotechnology crops that have been approved in the United 

States, but not in the EU, can make U.S. crops unmarketable in the EU.  The European 

Commission has announced that efforts are underway to develop a threshold that would 

allow this low level biotech presence in both food and feed shipments.  The U.S. 
43

Government will continue to engage with the EU on this matter in an effort to resolve the 

potential for trade disruption as a result of asynchronous approvals.   

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 will now have to include on products 

containing any of these six colors a statement that that the color “may have an adverse 

effect on activity and attention in children.”  

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 inclusion of such a statement on a warning 

label is neither required in the United States nor suggested in the applicable international 

standards (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 on the color additives evaluated in the Southampton Study.  EFSA’s opinions 

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 these color additives, if FDA‐certified, 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 believe a warning label is necessary.  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.  The United 

States recently raised this issue on the floor during the March 2010 SPS Committee 

meeting.   

Beef and Beef Products

During 2008, the United States and the European Commission also continued longstanding 

talks on a possible interim settlement of the beef hormone issue, under which the United 

States would lift the additional duties on EU imports in exchange for additional access to 
44

the EU market for so‐called "hormone‐free" beef.  In November 2008, the United States 

initiated a formal review of the beef hormones retaliation list.  USTR sought and received a 

large number of public comments on the possible revision of the list, which had not 

changed since 1999.   

In January 2009, USTR announced additions to and deletions from the list of EU products 

subject to additional duties, changed the list of EU Member States whose products were 

subject to the duties, and, for one product, increased the level of the additional duties.  All 

of these modifications were scheduled to go into effect in March 2009, but USTR repeatedly 

delayed imposing the new additional duties in order to encourage further settlement 

discussions. 

In May 2009, the United States signed an MOU with the EU to resolve the dispute on a 

provisional basis.  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 tons in each of the first three years, 

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 will 

eliminate all sanctions during the fourth year.  The MOU also calls for the two sides to 

refrain from further WTO litigation concerning the beef trade dispute for at least 18 

months.  Before the end of the four‐year period, the United States and the EU will seek to 

conclude a longer‐term agreement.  

Poultry

In 1997, the EU began blocking imports of poultry products that have been processed with 

chemical treatments designed to reduce microbial surface contamination.  The EU has 

further prohibited the marketing of poultry as "poultry meat" if it has been processed with 

these pathogen reduction treatments (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 and that U.S. poultry processors use to improve 

the safety of U.S. poultry products:  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 risk to the health of the poultry consumer. 

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 

rejected the Commission’s flawed proposal, first at the regulatory committee level and 

then, in December 2008, at the ministerial level. 
45

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 protein synthesis 

compound that promotes lean meat growth in pigs and certain other farm animals, despite 

scientific evidence indicating the ractopamine is safe.  Accordingly, 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 testing at a laboratory in Canada to verify the absence of ractopamine 

residue.  These requirements, which appear to lack a 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  

The United States continues to be concerned about the EU regulation that addresses the 

safety of animal by‐products that are not intended for human consumption, such as by‐

products to be included in consumer or industrial products (e.g., soap, candles, biodiesel, 

and industrial lubrication applications) or for use in animal feed.  U.S. exports most affected 

by this regulation include dry pet food, tallow, other animal protein products, and some 

hides and skins.  For example, the United States continues to be concerned that the 

regulation requires U.S. producers to ensure that any tallow they sell to the EU for uses 

other than human consumption is nevertheless processed in a manner appropriate for 

products intended for human consumption.  Such requirements do not appear to have a 

scientific basis, a point that appears to be supported by the EU’s own risk assessment.   

The United States understands that the European Commission is developing an amendment 

to this regulation that may address certain U.S. concerns, such as removing the pressure 

cooking requirement for tallow sold for reasons other than human consumption.  However, 

the United States remains concerned that the amendment would not address other trade 

impediments the regulation creates, including the restrictions it imposes on dry pet food, 

and other products containing animal by‐products.  The United States continues to engage 

with European regulators on this issue and to monitor EU regulatory activity on this issue 

very closely. 
46

Plant Health

Almonds   

Since September 2007, U.S. almond shipments to the EU have been subject to requirement 

for the testing of aflatoxins, a naturally occurring mycotoxin that is produced by a number 

of different fungi.  According to this requirement, almonds with a voluntary aflatoxin 

sampling plan (VASP) certificate were subject to 5 percent mandatory testing.  Almonds 

without a VASP certificate were subject to 100 percent mandatory testing upon import into 

Europe.  Previously, there were no specific requirements for testing imported almonds 

under EU regulations.    

U.S. regulatory authorities have worked with the industry to strengthen confidence in the 

VASP.  As a result of these efforts, effective January 1, 2010, the EU returned to random 

testing of almonds with a VASP certificate allowing U.S. almond exports to flow more freely 

into the EU.  Almonds without a VASP certificate continue to be subject to mandatory 100 

percent testing.  

Country Specific 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 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. 

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.   

See section III.B for a fuller explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 
47

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. 

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. 
48

GUATEMALA  

Food Safety  

Poultry

In April 2008, CACM member countries, including Guatemala, notified the WTO of their 

intent to establish microbiological criteria for a number of foods.  In response to the 

notification, the United States outlined a series of concerns that some of the proposed 

microbiological criteria (specifically zero tolerance for Salmonella of poultry meat) 

appeared to lack a scientific basis, and had the potential to be a trade barrier for U.S. 

poultry exports.   In February 2009, U.S. officials met with Central American government 

authorities to further discuss their zero tolerance policies.  The United States will continue 

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

address U.S. concerns regarding the zero tolerance policy.  As a result of U.S. outreach, 

Guatemala has said that it will not apply a zero‐tolerance Salmonella standard on 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, and 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 strong scientific basis and would substantially 

disrupt food exports to GCC Member States.  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.  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.   

HONDURAS

Food Safety

Poultry  

In April 2008, CACM member countries, which include Honduras, notified the WTO of their 

intent to establish microbiological criteria for a number of foods.  In response to the 

notification, the United States outlined a series of concerns that some of the proposed 
49

microbiological criteria (specifically zero tolerance for Salmonella on poultry meat) 

appeared to lack a scientific basis, and had the potential to be a trade barrier for U.S. 

poultry exports.   In February 2009, U.S. officials met with Central American government 

authorities to further discuss their zero tolerance policies.  The United States will continue 

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

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

HONG KONG

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Hong Kong banned imports of U.S. beef and beef products following the detection of a BSE 

positive animal in 2003.  After two years of intensive efforts on the part of the United 

States, Hong Kong announced in December 2005 the partial re‐opening of its market to 

deboned beef from cattle less than 30 months of age, with numerous restrictions and 

additional measures that are not consistent with OIE guidelines or are science‐based.  

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.  The United States awaits Hong Kong’s technical findings of 

this visit.   The United States continues to engage with Hong Kong to open fully its market 

for all U.S. beef and beef products in accordance with science, the OIE guidelines, and the 

United States’ controlled risk status.   

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

INDIA

Food Safety

Dairy Products

Since 2003, India has imposed questionable SPS requirements on dairy imports, which 

have essentially precluded U.S. access to one of the world’s largest dairy markets.  For 

example, India requires certifications that dairy products are free of recombinant bovine 

somatotropin (rBST) and animal‐derived rennet.  However, Codex has approved for use 

both rBST and animal‐derived rennet, and India has not provided to the United States a 

scientific basis for applying more stringent measures than those standards approved by 

Codex.  India has similarly failed to provide scientific justifications for other dairy MRLs 

that are more stringent than the relevant Codex standards.   
50

The United States has raised these concerns in bilateral and multilateral meetings over the 

past seven years, but without success.  For example, the United States has proposed several 

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 the market to 

U.S. products, the United States has developed alternative certification options for India’s 

consideration.  In 2009, the United States again suggested export certificate language, 

which remains under consideration by the Indian government. 

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 requires specific feeding requirements, slaughter plant requirements, and 

packaging material specifications without providing a scientific justification for those 

requirements.  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.  Despite repeated requests from the United 

States and other major trading partners, India has not yet provided a scientific justification 

for its ban.  India’s ban is inconsistent with the OIE guidelines, which do not provide for the 

imposition of trade restrictions based on the presence of LPAI in the exporting country.  

The United States, other countries, and OIE representatives have repeatedly raised 

concerns about India’s measures at the WTO SPS Committee and will continue to press 

India to rescind its measures. 

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 science‐based and that do 

not follow OIE guidelines, as well as impose other requirements, which have effectively 

stopped imports of U.S. dry processed pet food.   

See section III.D for a fuller explanation of the AI trade issue. 

Plant Health

Wheat and Barley

India maintains overly restrictive standards for certain plant quarantine pests, such as for 

weed seeds and ergot, which have blocked U.S. wheat and barley imports.  Bilateral 
51

technical level discussions to resolve these issues have been ongoing, but little success has 

been achieved to date.   

ISRAEL

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Israel bans imports of U.S. beef and beef products due to the detection of a BSE positive 

animal in the United States in 2003.  As a result of this incident, work on an agreement that 

would have allowed imports of live cattle was suspended.  Despite regular bilateral 

consultations, all U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products remain banned.  Israel is in the 

process of reviewing its BSE policy.  The United States continues to engage with Israel to 

fully open its market for all live cattle, beef, and beef products from the United States on the 

basis of 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

Israeli regulations prohibit the import of pet food from the United States containing 

ruminant materials.  These regulations do not appear to be science‐based or consistent 

with OIE guidelines.  Israel is currently reviewing its BSE policy and has indicated its intent 

to align its policies with the OIE.  The United States continues to engage with Israel on this 

issue. 

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

Plant Health

Cherries

Israel does not allow imports of U.S. sweet cherries citing various plant pests and diseases 

of concern.  U.S. officials are working with Israel to complete its risk assessment on cherries 

in an attempt to resolve this longstanding issue, which has blocked U.S. exports for nearly 

eight years.     

Table Grapes

Israel does not allow 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 grapes in 
52

an attempt to resolve this long standing issue, which has blocked U.S. exports for nearly 

five years. 

Apples and Pears

In March 2009, Israel’s Plant Protection and Inspection Service (PPIS) informed the United 

States that U.S. apples and pears would have to follow new cold treatment requirements to 

mitigate the risks of apple maggot and plum curculio despite the fact that Israel has not 

conducted a pest risk assessment and these pests have not been found in shipments from 

the United States.  Israel has granted the United States an exemption from these 

requirements until June 1, 2010.  U.S. officials are currently working with industry and 

state officials on proposals for submission to Israel that would lessen the requirements that 

will be imposed following the expiration of the exemption period. 

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 has been eliminated in commercial production in the United 

States since 2004.  However, to date, U.S. efforts to persuade Jamaica to remove its ban 

have been unsuccessful.   

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 re‐opened its market 

to U.S. beef and beef products from animals aged 20 months or younger.  However, the 

protocol, which implemented this limited re‐opening, has not proved to be commercially 

viable and has prevented the United States from regaining all but a small portion of its 

historic level of exports to the Japanese market.  Before the ban, Japan was the largest 

export market for U.S. beef and beef products, which totaled nearly $1.4 billion in 2003. 

The U.S. Government has repeatedly urged Japan to bring its BSE‐related measures in line 

with the OIE guidelines and open its market to the full range of U.S. beef and beef products 

consistent with the United States’ “controlled risk” status.  The U.S. Government remains 

highly concerned by Japan's unwillingness to open its market fully and is working 
53

vigorously to normalize exports to this important market on the basis of science, the OIE 

guidelines, and the United States’ controlled risk status. 

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

Potatoes   

Japan's standards for microbial content on frozen foods are, in certain instances, 

impractical and 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 are destined for further processing by cooking 

in oil, which would eliminate the presence of coliforms, and thus any risk of negative health 

effects.    

In February 2009, Japan informed United States that it was willing to move frozen French 

fries into a different frozen food category, which would recognize that frozen French fries 

are not a source of coliform bacteria.  This new categorization is aimed at protecting 

Japanese consumers while ensuring rejections of imported U.S. frozen fries would not 

occur for unnecessary 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 in wide use in the United States and 

throughout the world are not allowed in Japan, including many newer additives that are 

considered safer than older alternatives.  In addition, Japan has imposed conditions on 

many of the food additives it has approved, further limiting the use of these specific food 

additives on a product‐by‐product basis.   

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).  In 2002, Japan 

created a list of 46 food additives for expedited review, but 25 additives still have not been 

reviewed and approved, notwithstanding the availability of extensive data on safety.  The 

U.S. Government has urged Japan through the U.S.‐Japan Regulatory Reform Initiative to 

complete its review of the list of food additives and to expedite the review process for food 

additives.

Post Harvest Fungicide (PHF)

Japan’s Food Safety Commission requires 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 assure that two risk 
54

assessments are performed, which can take as long as five to six years to complete, and 

deters registrants from pursuing approval for newer (and potentially) safer 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 one risk assessment regardless of the time 

of application to the crop.  Japan has advised the United States that it is reviewing its 

current regulatory approach and may announce changes in its review policies in the near 

future.   

In addition, food labeling laws in Japan require the notification at the retail point of sale of 

all food additives, including PHFs.  The effect of this requirement is that a U.S. horticultural 

product will carry a label notifying the consumer that certain fungicides were used in the 

production of the product where the competing Japanese product will carry no such label, 

even though both products may have been treated with the same fungicide.  Such a 

requirement unnecessarily discourages Japanese consumers from purchasing U.S. 

products.  

The United States continues in the U.S.‐Japan Regulatory Reform Initiative to work with 

Japan to eliminate these costly and unnecessary requirements.  

Maximum Residue Limits  

Prior to 2009, Japan’s enforcement of its MRLs could subject all exports of a commodity 

from a country to increased testing based on MRL violations incurred by other exporters 

from that country.  Under the previous Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (MHLW) 

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 a 

12 month period 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 on 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 on 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 
55

permanent, science‐based MRLs, unreasonably low default MRLs that are in place until 

permanent MRLs are established, and enforcement practices where the U.S. MRL is less 

restrictive than Japan’s MRL.  The United States continues to press Japan to adopt MRL 

enforcement measures that conform to Codex international standards. 

See section III.F 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 by 

increasing the cost of U.S. rice through excessive testing requirements.  MHLW, Japan’s food 

safety regulator, 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 safety regulations.  These tests are mandatory and paid for by MAFF.  

However, as the buyer 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 non‐optional.  

The large number of chemicals 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 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 is inconsistent 

with the OIE guidelines for avian influenza.  The United States continues to press Japan to 

agree to an OIE‐consistent revised protocol.   

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

Plant Health

Cherries

Japan individually approves each new variety of fresh cherry following fumigation trials, a 

burdensome process that restricts entry of new varieties of cherries.  Japan has not 

provided a scientific basis for testing of each variety given that the pest list for all varieties 

is the same.  The United States is working with Japan to encourage Japan to accept fresh 

sweet cherries as a single commodity, all varieties of which may be imported without the 

need for separate testing.  
56

KAZAKHSTAN

Animal Health

Poultry

In July 2009, Kazakhstan banned imports of meat derived from birds raised and shipped 

from Minnesota on or after July 26, 2009 due to concerns about LPAI.  This ban, which is 

still in place, does not appear to be science‐based or consistent with the OIE guidelines, 

which do not allow for the imposition of trade restrictions for LPAI.  The United States is 

engaging Kazakhstan on this issue in a number of fora, including in Kazakhstan’s WTO 

accession talks. 

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

KENYA

Food Safety

  

Beef and Beef Products

Kenya maintains a complete ban on imports of U.S. beef and beef products due to concerns 

over BSE, which Kenya maintains despite the United States’ status as a “controlled risk” 

country.  

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

KUWAIT

Animal Health

Poultry

Kuwait has banned imports of live fowl, hatching eggs, and one‐day old chicks from 

Kentucky and Minnesota, citing concerns about the detection of LPAI in those states.  This 

restriction does not appear to be science‐based or consistent with the OIE guidelines, 

which do not allow for the imposition of trade restrictions for LPAI.  The United States has 

raised this issue with officials in Kuwait and will continue to press Kuwaiti officials to 

resolve this matter.   

See section III.D for an explanation of the AI trade issue. 
57

MEXICO

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

In December 2003, Mexico banned imports of U.S. beef and beef products following the 

detection of a BSE positive animal in the United States.  In March 2004, Mexico was the first 

foreign country to announce that it would accept imports of U.S. deboned beef from cattle 

less than 30 months of age, and it subsequently lifted restrictions on a number of offal and 

processed deboned beef products.  In early 2006, Mexico lifted its ban on U.S. bone‐in beef 

from animals less than 30 months of age, and in October 2008, the United States and 

Mexico reached an agreement allowing imports into Mexico of U.S. breeding cattle born 

after 1999.   

However, Mexico continues to ban or restrict imports of live cattle (non‐breeding animals), 

all beef and beef products from animals 30 months of age and older, ground beef, and 

certain offal.  The United States continues to engage with Mexico to allow for the import of 

a full range of U.S. beef and beef products from animals of any age, consistent with science, 

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

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

Pork

Fresh chilled meats for processing are exported from the United States 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.  After U.S. engagement, Mexico delayed implementing – most recently until 

May 2010 – intrusive 100 percent sampling of combos at the border.  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 does not unnecessarily burden 

trade.  Uncertainty surrounding the nature of a new inspection system as well as its date of 

implementation has been a cause of concern among U.S. meat exporters.  

Plant Health

Stonefruit

U.S. peach, nectarine, and apricot growers are encountering problems with respect to 

Mexico’s approach for controlling oriental fruit moths despite the fact that the oriental fruit 

moth has never been detected in shipments to Mexico.  The United States reached 

agreement with Mexico in 2008 to review the current bilateral operational work plan.  

However, Mexico has subsequently failed to make any significant changes that would 

benefit California stone fruit exports for the upcoming shipping season.  In January 2009, 
58

Mexico added several new pests of concern.  The United States will continue to work with 

Mexican authorities to address this important issue.   

Potatoes

Mexico continues to prohibit U.S. fresh potatoes to be shipped beyond a 26 kilometer zone 

along the U.S.‐Mexico border.  Although the two countries came to an agreement in 2003 

that provided a road map for market access of U.S. potatoes to the whole of Mexico over a 

three‐year period, Mexico has been slow to implement the agreement.  The United States 

continues to work closely with the U.S. potato industry to address Mexico’s pest concerns 

that will justify the removal of the 26 kilometer border zone restriction.  As part of this 

engagement, the United States has submitted substantial technical data to Mexico, and 

Mexico has completed a promised risk assessment.  The United States is analyzing this risk 

assessment to determine the next steps it will take to help achieve more complete market 

access for U.S. exporters.  The United States raised this issue with Mexico in bilateral 

meetings with Mexico in July 2009.   

MOROCCO

Food Safety and Animal Health

Morocco restricts imports of U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products, and poultry and 

poultry products through requirements related to growth hormones, BSE, AI, and 

Salmonella.  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. 

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

explanation of the AI trade issue. 

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 porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome 

(PRRS) and post weaning multi systemic wasting syndrome.  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.  The standards would have allowed for the importation of high‐value, 

consumer‐ready cuts of uncooked pork from countries not considered free of PRRS.  

However, later that year New Zealand established an independent panel to review the 

provisional import health standards.  The panel must complete its review before the 
59

process can continue.  The United States will continue 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’s risk 

assessment is expected to be completed in the first half of 2010, and the import health 

standard, which is based on the risk assessment, will likely be completed later this year. 

NICARAGUA

Food Safety

Poultry

In April 2008, the CACM member countries, including Nicaragua, notified the WTO of their 

intent to establish microbiological criteria for a number of foods.  In response to the 

notification, the United States outlined a series of concerns that some of the proposed 

microbiological criteria (specifically zero tolerance for Salmonella on poultry meat) 

appeared to lack a scientific basis, and had the potential to be a trade barrier for U.S. 

poultry exports.  In February 2009, U.S. officials met with Central American government 

authorities to further discuss their zero tolerance policies.  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 policy. 

Beef and Beef Products

After intensive engagement by the U.S. Government, Nicaragua fully opened its market to 

all U.S. beef and beef products in line with the OIE guidelines for BSE controlled risk 

countries in February 2009.  Prior to fully opening the market, Nicaragua prohibited 

imports of U.S. deboned beef from cattle 30 months of age and older and bone‐in beef from 

cattle of any age.  

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

NORWAY

Biotechnology

Since 1996, Norway has adopted policies that effectively ban the import of agricultural 

biotechnology products.  The United States will continue to press Norway to open its 

market to U.S. exports of those products. 
60

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.  Peru and the other three 

CAN member countries (Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador) maintain that CAN rules prevent 

them from lifting their BSE‐related restrictions.  

With regard to live cattle, in December 2007, the United States invited each CAN member 

country to send a technical representative to the United States to initiate the approval 

process for exporting live cattle from the United States.  Peru, along with Bolivia, Ecuador, 

and a CAN representative, participated in the resulting August 2008 trip organized by 

USDA to resolve issues that would facilitate the resumption of U.S. cattle imports.   

In May 2009, the CAN published a proposed risk assessment stipulating that only live 

animals under 24 months of age could be imported.  This proposed risk assessment departs 

from OIE guidelines.  In August 2009, the United States submitted technical comments on 

the proposed risk assessment; these are currently under review by Peru and the other CAN 

member countries.  

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. 
61

PHILIPPINES

Food Safety

Meat and Poultry  

In 2008, Philippine authorities issued an administrative order that requires accreditation 

of foreign rendering plants that export animal proteins to the Philippines.  As a result of the 

order, the Philippine Department of Agriculture (DA) conducted an audit of a number of 

U.S. rendering plants in September 2009.  In October 2009, the DA formally allowed the 

entry of U.S. meat and bone meal to the Philippines, which had been banned since 2004 due 

to BSE concerns.     

The new guidelines require all exporting countries or individual establishments to obtain 

either systems or individual plant accreditation to be eligible suppliers.  In July 2009, the 

United States received formal accreditation from Philippine authorities for exports of meat 

and poultry products, following an audit of U.S. meat and poultry establishments that 

produce for export to the Philippines.  All U.S. meat and poultry establishments that are 

regulated and inspected by U.S. regulatory authorities currently are eligible to export meat 

and poultry to the Philippines.   

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

Animal Health

Sheep and Goat Exports

In October 2009, the Philippines accepted a U.S. proposal for health requirements on 

imports of sheep and goats, which allowed U.S. exports to continue to flow.   

Plant Health  

Quarantine Clearance

The Philippine Department of Agriculture now requires a plant quarantine certificate 

(PQC) for processed plant products (e.g., frozen French fries and raisins), which are already 

regulated by the Philippine Food and Drug Administration.  This requirement appears to be 

duplicative because existing Philippine FDA requirements appear to already address the 

safety issues associated with these products. The United States continues to engage with 

the Philippines on this issue. 
62

RUSSIA

Systemic Issues

Russia’s SPS standards are extremely prescriptive with detailed 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.  Since these requirements are not always based on science or 

consistent with international recommendations or guidelines, this has created difficulties 

for U.S. exporters of a range of products, including dairy, feed, and pet food.  Russian 

government resolutions directing that international standards, guidelines, and 

recommendations of the OIE and IPPC be respected could prove helpful, but in practice 

they are not always followed, and often no justification is provided for departures.  Overall, 

Russia’s application of unwarranted SPS measures has had a significant negative effect on 

U.S. exports.  The entry into force of the proposed Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus Customs 

Union could further complicate these matters as it is the three countries’ intention to 

harmonize their SPS measures.  The three countries have stated they will produce 

harmonized SPS standards by April 1, 2010 for implementation by July 1, 2010.   

U.S. exporters face systemic issues in Russia related to the certification of agricultural 

products.  For example, Russia requires phytosanitary certificates for shipments of 

processed products like soybean proteins, corn gluten and distiller’s grain, which due to 

the nature of the processing process, do not appear to present a pest risk and consequently 

do not receive a phytosanitary certification from the U.S. Government.  Likewise, Russia 

requests certification that the United States is free from various livestock diseases even 

when 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.  

In November 2006, the United States and Russia signed a number of bilateral agreements 

to address SPS issues related to the trade in pork; the certification of pork and poultry 

facilities for exporting products to Russia; trade in beef and beef by‐products; and trade in 

products of agricultural biotechnology.  There have been implementation problems with 

several of these agreements, however.  For example, under the terms of the November 

2006 United States‐Russia bilateral agreement on the inspection of U.S. meat and poultry 

facilities, USDA has the authority to inspect and certify that poultry, pork, and beef facilities 

meet the agreed sanitary requirements and thus are eligible to export products to Russia.  

However, in October 2008, Russia’s Federal Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance 

Service (Rosselkhoznadzor) announced that it no longer recognized USDA’s authority to 

inspect and relist plants that completed corrective actions.   
63

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 required re‐registration of approved products, labeling of 

genetically engineered products, and its 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

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 United States ‐ 

Russia Bilateral Agreement on Trade in Beef.  The United States and Russia continue to 

negotiate a certificate to allow for the export of deboned beef, bone‐in beef, and beef by‐

products from cattle over 30 months of age from plants that have been inspected and 

certified to export to the Russian Federation.   

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

Poultry  

Russia banned the importation and sale of chlorine‐treated chicken on January 1, 2010, 

which essentially halted all imports of U.S. poultry.  Russian regulations also place an upper 

limit on the amount of water content in chilled and frozen chicken.  In addition, the Russian 

government has issued a resolution banning the importation and sale of poultry that has 

been frozen for more than three months and is intended for further processing into food 

intended for use in baby food and special diets.  In 2011, the ban will extend to all further 

processing of poultry that has been frozen for more than three months.  Russia has not 

provided a scientific justification for these restrictions.  U.S. trade and agricultural officials 

have discussed these issues extensively with their Russian counterparts, urging them not to 

implement these regulations and to adopt, as soon as possible, SPS measures that are 

consistent with international standards of the OIE and Codex.  Negotiations on these issues 

are ongoing. 

Dairy

Russia is requesting that export certificates it requires for U.S. dairy products exported to 

Russia include a statement that the products meet Russian requirements for chemical, 

microbiological, and radiological residues that do not appear to have a basis in science.  In 
64

addition, Russia is requesting a list of exporters that meet Russian requirements and will 

be audited by Russian veterinarians.  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.  To date, Russia has not implemented this ban.  The U.S. Government 

continues to actively engage with Russia on the dairy certificate language. 

Animal Health

Pork Export Certificates

Russia maintains MRLs that are more stringent than accepted Codex standards, including 

many that are in effect zero tolerance standards, such as for tetracycline.  Russia has thus 

far refused to provide risk assessments to support these more stringent standards.  If left 

unresolved, these requirements will continue to be major barriers to trade to U.S. exports  

These restrictions led to the delisting of over 30 facilities, most frequently for findings of 

tetracycline‐group antibiotics at very low levels of less than 10 parts per billion, resulting 

in an effective ban on U.S. pork exports to Russia.  Negotiations to remove these restrictions 

are ongoing. 

Inspection of Facilities Producing Pork and Poultry   

Under the November 2006 United States‐Russia Plant Inspection agreement for meat and 

poultry facilities, Russia agreed to grant U.S. regulatory officials the authority to certify new 

facilities and/or facilities that had remedied a deficiency.  In accordance with the 

agreement, the Russia also agreed to specific deadlines to respond to requests to list 

facilities that U.S. authorities had inspected and determined to be in compliance with 

requirements to export to the Russian Federation.  Today, however, Russian 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 refused to relist facilities that 

U.S. regulatory officials have inspected.  The U.S. Government continues discuss this issue 

with Russia’s veterinary service.   

Grains and Oilseeds

Exports 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 as 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. 
65

Pet Food

Russia does not allow U.S. beef to be included in pet food imported to Russia due to alleged 

BSE concerns, and requires unwarranted heat treatment processing procedures (in 

addition to microbial testing).  In addition to requiring export certificates for this product 

from U.S. authorities, Russia recently demanded a list of exporters that meet Russian 

standards and are approved to export to Russia.  The United States will continue to engage 

with Russian officials on this subject in 2010.   

SAUDI ARABIA

Food Safety

See discussion of Gulf Cooperation Council food safety requirements. 

Animal Health

Saudi Arabia has agreed to allow imports of U.S. beef and poultry under the following 

conditions.  First, all shipments must contain an FSIS export certificate.  Second, producers 

or manufacturers must self‐certify additional requirements not related to food safety or 

animal health issues, such as an animal protein‐free declaration for animal feeds.  In 

addition, Saudi Arabia bans the import of therapeutic medicines used in animal feed 

without providing a scientific justification for the ban. 

SINGAPORE

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Singapore bans imports of U.S. bone‐in beef from animals under 30 months of age, and 

offals and variety meats and all beef and beef products derived from animals 30 months of 

age or older based on BSE concerns.  The United States continues to press Singapore to 

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

status.  Singapore has informed the United States that it is in the process of performing a 

risk assessment of U.S. beef and beef products.  The United States continues to engage with 

relevant Singapore authorities and to urge Singapore to complete this risk assessment. 

See section III.C for an explanation of the BSE trade issue. 
66

SOUTH AFRICA

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

South Africa continues to ban the import of all U.S. ruminant animals and products, 

including all beef and beef products, following the detection of a BSE positive animal in the 

United States in 2003.  The United States is actively engaging with South Africa to fully re‐

open its beef market to U.S. beef and beef products consistent with 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

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.  The disease was eliminated in commercial production in all 50 states by 

2004.  Nevertheless, South Africa imposes a freezing requirement to prevent the 

transmission of pseudorabies.  The U.S. Government and U.S. pork industry have worked 

with South Africa to eliminate this and other restrictions, but so far little progress has been 

made.   

SOUTH AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY

Biotechnology

Since 2005, the South African Development Community (SADC) has banned the 

importation of agricultural biotechnology products.7  Under the SADC’s agricultural 

biotechnology ban, importers of agricultural products must present documents certifying 

that their goods do not include agricultural biotechnology products.  There are limited 

exceptions to the ban on imports of agricultural biotechnology products.  Grain from 

biotechnology‐derived varieties can be imported for food aid, but must be milled or 

sterilized to render the grain incapable of germinating after arriving in the country.  In 

addition, products of agricultural biotechnology imported for scientific research may be 

allowed, subject to regulations and controls to be established by the various countries. 

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

                                                           

7 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.  
67

SOUTH KOREA

Food Safety

Food Additives  

The Korean Food and Drug Administration’s (KFDA) March 2009 proposal to ban artificial 

synthetic colors, also known as "tar colors,” from use in foods preferred by children 

garnered the attention of many countries and the international food industry because the 

proposal appeared to lack a scientific basis.  The synthetic colors listed in the proposed ban 

are widely used by the international food industry and are in compliance with international 

standards, such as the FAO/WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and 

the Codex standards.  After extensive consultation with the U.S. Government and other 

stakeholders in 2009 and 2010, Korea has decided not to pursue this proposal at this time.   

Beef and Beef Products

In April 2008, the United States and Korea signed an agreement to fully re‐open Korea’s 

market to U.S. beef and beef products in a manner consistent with international standards 

and science.  In June 2008, following massive street protest in Seoul, Korean beef importers 

and U.S. exporters reached a 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.  Since U.S. beef sales resumed in June 2008, 

Korea has proven to be a reliable export market.  In 2009, U.S. exports of beef and beef 

products to Korea reached 55,540 metric tons, valued at $216 million, making Korea the 

fourth largest U.S. beef export market.   

Sales of higher‐value U.S. chilled beef have been rising in Korea, indicative of increasing 

confidence among Korean importers (since chilled beef is perishable and requires a quick 

sale).  One example of this trend of growing confidence by Korean retailers, hotels and 

restaurants is a recent promotion by one of Korea’s largest retailers that resulted in a 300 

percent increase in one week’s sales of U.S. beef and beef products.  The U.S. industry has 

also publicly expressed its growing confidence in the Korean market.  The U.S. Government 

will continue to work with Korea to normalize fully U.S. beef exports.  

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

Plant Health

Cherries

Korea requires that exports of U.S. cherries undergo fumigation with methyl bromide 

before shipping for the control of 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 cost combined with improved 
68

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 

on finding an alternative approach to methyl bromide fumigation.  

Maximum Residue Limits  

In June 2009, Korea notified the WTO that it was initiating a process for updating its MRL 

regulatory system by proposing to eliminate existing MRLs if pesticides are not registered 

for domestic use in Korea.  This includes MRLs that have been established through a 

scientific risk assessment and pose an unacceptable level of risk to human and animal 

health.  The United States is concerned that certain pesticides will be prohibited in Korea 

that are approved for use in the United States and do not present human health concerns, 

disrupting trade in products that are treated with these pesticides.  The United States will 

continue to encourage Korea to maintain the current list of import MRLs, based on risk 

assessments provided by U.S. regulatory authorities using the most current available 

scientific data, or until risk assessments in Korea are complete.  The United States will 

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.  

See section III.F for an explanation of the MRL trade issue. 

Biotechnology

Korea’s regulatory system for biotechnology has become increasingly trade disruptive in 

recent years.  In 2008, Korea implemented the Living Modified Organisms Act (LMO Act), 

which regulates trade in agricultural biotech products.  The United States has a number of 

concerns with 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 with Korea’s definitions for “multi‐trait 

events” and “adventitious presence,” as well as aspects of Korea’s risk assessment review, 

which may lead to delays in new product approvals.  The U.S. and Korean governments are 

working together to address these concerns, and have made some progress, particularly 

related to certain product approvals.  Nevertheless, remaining concerns with the LMO Act 

will require continued engagement to avoid significant disruptions in U.S. exports. 

See section III.A for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 
69

SRI LANKA

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Sri Lanka has banned all imports of all U.S. beef and beef products following the detection 

of a BSE positive animal in 2003 in the United States.  The United States continues to 

engage with Sri Lanka, most recently at the October 2009 TIFA Council meeting, to open its 

market for all U.S. beef and beef products 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. 

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 government testing methods are 

unsound.  During the October 2009 Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) 

meeting, the United States requested that Sri Lanka to provide its regulation on 

microbiological testing, especially as it relates to the testing protocol, targeted pathogens, 

and acceptable pathogen levels. 

Plant Health

Seed Potatoes

Sri Lanka currently bans imports of U.S. seed potatoes.  USDA and Sri Lanka’s Department 

of Agriculture officials are currently in technical discussions to resolve this issue.  In July 

2009, USDA requested Sri Lanka to consider a virus tolerance of two percent for all viruses, 

and allow import of G4 and G5 seed potatoes if they meet certain high level standards.    

SWITZERLAND

Biotechnology

Switzerland has a burdensome and slow process for approving agricultural biotechnology 

products for food and feed use.  In addition, starting in November 2005, Switzerland 

implemented a five year moratorium on approvals for cultivation of biotechnology crops.  

U.S. officials will continue to urge Switzerland to address 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. 
70

TAIWAN (CHINESE TAIPEI)

Food Safety

Beef and Beef Products

Taiwan began banning imports of U.S. beef and beef products following the detection of a 

BSE positive animal in 2003.  In 2006, Taiwan began allowing imports of U.S. beef to 

boneless products derived from animals under 30 months of age.   

During 2009, the United States continued to press Taiwan to provide market access for the 

full range of U.S. beef and beef products in a manner consistent with the OIE guidelines for 

BSE, as well as with Taiwan’s own risk assessment, which concluded that U.S. beef and beef 

products are safe.  In October 2009, as a result of these efforts, the United States and 

Taiwan concluded a new science‐based and OIE‐consistent bilateral protocol providing for 

expanded market access for U.S. beef and beef products.  Shortly after the Protocol entered 

into force, however, Taiwan’s legislature adopted an amendment to Taiwan’s Food 

Sanitation Act that in effect banned imports of ground beef and certain offals from the 

United States, as well as certain other non‐hazardous cattle parts.  Such a ban is 

inconsistent with the Protocol.  Furthermore, Taiwan authorities have taken a range of 

administrative measures that have created uncertainty in the market.  The United States is 

pressing Taiwan to act consistently with its obligations under the Protocol and to refrain 

from taking measures that unnecessarily burden U.S. exports of beef and beef products. 

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

Pork

Ractopamine is not approved for use in Taiwan, and Taiwan has repeatedly delayed 

implementation of its proposed MRL for ractopamine, which had been notified to the WTO.  

Taiwan’s action has forced U.S. pork producers to ship pork products sourced from animals 

not treated with ractopamine, which has caused a significant trade concern.   

The United States has raised this priority issue at several meetings of the WTO SPS 

Committee and at numerous bilateral meetings with Taiwan.  Taiwanese authorities have 

acknowledged in various meetings with the United States that trace amounts of 

ractopamine in pork do not present a health risk.  However, Taiwan continues to maintain 

a zero tolerance policy for ractopamine.   

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.  This backlog has resulted in the rejection of 
71

various U.S. agricultural shipments including wheat, barley, strawberries, corn, apples and 

several other fruits and vegetables.  To avoid continuing trade disruptions, the United 

States has pressed 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.  As part of this agreement, the U.S. Government has worked extensively with 

Taiwan through data sharing and technical assistance to facilitate Taiwan in establishing 

MRLs for newer, safer chemicals.  

See section III.F for an explanation of the MRL trade issue. 

Animal Health

Pet Food

Taiwan bans the import of ruminant and non‐ruminant products intended for use in animal 

feed and pet food, such as tallow (including protein‐free tallow), lard, and porcine meal, for 

BSE‐related concerns.   

Plant Health

Apples

The Codling Moth (CM) 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 CM detection in Taiwan in 

November 2002, Taiwan suspended 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 CM detections occurred in a single shipping 

season.  While the current penalty structure (often referred to as “three strikes”) has 

facilitated some trade, the penalty structure is not tied to volume, and therefore risk to 

Taiwan, and improperly punishes small exporters.  To date, Taiwan has not conducted a 

PRA for CM in apples.  U.S. regulatory authorities have provided Taiwan with U.S. research 

demonstrating that the risk associated with CM transmission and establishment in Taiwan 

via U.S.‐origin apples is extremely low.  Taiwan authorities continue to review this 

research, but have not met with U.S. officials to discuss the U.S. findings in detail.   

THAILAND

Food Safety

Pork

In January 2010, Thailand lifted its ban on U.S. pork and pork products that had been put in 

place based on H1N1 concerns.  However, the United States is still unable to export 

unprocessed pork products and offals to Thailand due to its requirement for exporters to 
72

complete a questionnaire that obligates the U.S. producer to agree to a number of 

burdensome requirements, including the requirement that each producer’s facility will be 

inspected by Thai officials.  The United States has argued that Thailand should adopt a 

system‐based approach that analyzes the United States’ entire food safety system relating 

to pork production, rather than relying on individual plant inspections for all exporting 

facilities.  In addition, Thailand imposes other trade barriers on imports of U.S. pork and 

products, including a prohibition of even trace residues of ractopamine in pork imports.   

See section III.A for an explanation of the H1N1 trade issue and section III.E for an 

explanation of the ractopamine trade issue. 

Beef and Beef Products

Thailand bans the import 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 

with Thailand to fully open its market for all U.S. beef and beef products on the basis of 

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

In October 2009, the Turkish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs published, with 

immediate effect, a regulation on trade in agricultural biotechnology products.  In addition, 

the Turkish parliament recently adopted a related law on agricultural biotechnology.  The 

regulation and draft law propose a comprehensive new authorization system for products 

derived through agricultural biotechnology.  Several aspects of the new system present 

barriers to trade in biotechnology products.  For example, the requirement that a product 

be commercialized in the country of development for three years prior to approval by 

Turkish authorities would appear to restrict trade regardless of the outcome of a scientific 

risk assessment by Turkish authorities.  The United States has raised concerns with the 

Turkish government regarding specific provisions of the law and regulations.  In addition, 

the U.S. Government and industry stakeholders have conducted outreach in Turkey 

regarding the biotechnology and biotechnology‐derived products affected by the regulation 

and draft law.  The United States will continue to raise U.S. concerns with Turkey regarding 

those provisions of its laws and regulations governing biotechnology products.  

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 
73

Food Safety

Meat

Turkey has not allowed meat imports from any country since 1996.  Turkey maintains that 

the ban on meat imports relates to health concerns, but has not established any public 

health requirements or provided a scientific justification for the ban.   

Animal Health

Animal Breeding

In July 2007, the United States and Turkey concluded a protocol permitting imports into 

Turkey of live breeding cattle from the United States.  Further, in 2009, the United States 

and Turkey signed an additional protocol permitting imports of live breeding bulls.  

However, Turkey enforces semen concentration requirements that appear to exceed 

accepted international standards.  These restrictions limit sales and increase the per unit 

price.  In addition, U.S. industry believes that Turkey imposes overly restrictive genetic 

requirements. 

Plant Health

Wood Products

In February 2009, Turkey imposed regulations that require that 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 continues to discuss these restrictions 

with Turkey.    

UKRAINE

Biotechnology

Although Ukraine’s parliament passed a law establishing the framework for the creation, 

testing, and use of products of agricultural biotechnology in 2007, the implementing 

regulations necessary to open the market are still under development.  The absence of a 

functioning approval process creates unpredictable sales conditions for U.S. processed food 

products, corn products, soybeans, and meal.  The United States is working with Ukraine to 

establish procedures governing agricultural biotechnology that include science‐based risk 

assessments.   

See section III.B for an explanation of the biotechnology trade issue. 
74

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Food Safety

See discussion of Gulf Cooperation Council for food safety requirements. 

Beef and Beef Products

Since July 2009, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has required all imports of fresh/frozen 

meat and meat products to 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 open its market 

for all U.S. beef and beef products on the basis of science, the OIE guidelines, and the United 

States’ controlled risk status.   

URUGUAY

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Uruguay bans all 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. poultry products due to concerns over AI and 

Newcastle’s disease.  In October 2007, the United States and Uruguay reached an 

agreement that permitted exports of U.S. turkeys to resume.  The United States’ consent to 

the agreement, however, was premised on the understanding that the two countries would 

complete negotiations that would include all poultry and poultry products, consistent with 

science and the relevant OIE guidelines.  The United States raised the issue during the 

November 2009 Consultative Committee on Agriculture meetings with Uruguay.  The 

United States continues to engage with Uruguay on this issue.  

See section III.D for an explanation of the AI trade issue. 
75

VENEZUELA

Food Safety

Live Cattle, Beef, and Beef Products

Venezuela bans all U.S. live cattle, beef, and beef products following the detection of a BSE 

positive animal in the United States in 2003.  The United States has provided relevant 

information to Venezuela and continues to engage where possible with Venezuela 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. 

Animal Health

Poultry

Venezuela does not issue sanitary import permits for U.S. poultry on the basis that it may 

have been infected with AI.  Venezuela’s action does not appear to be consistent with OIE 

guidelines.  

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

VIETNAM

Animal Health

Beef and Beef Products

Vietnam currently accepts all U.S. beef and beef products from cattle less than 30 months of 

age.  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 consistent 

with the science, OIE guidelines, and the United States’ status as a “controlled risk” country.   

Throughout 2009, technical experts from the United States held extensive consultations 

with officials from Vietnam’s Department of Animal Health seeking to facilitate greater 

access for U.S. exports to the Vietnamese market including:  beef and beef products, live 

cattle, pet food, hide and bone derived gelatin, and swine and swine semen, among others.  

The United States and Vietnam continue to discuss and make progress on these 

commodities with a view to increasing trade consistent with international standards.    
76
77

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 2008 alone, the U.S. Government obligated about $6.6 million in SPS trade 

capacity building assistance, for a total of approximately $70 million since 2000.  This 

assistance took many forms, including training seminars, staff assistance, and data sharing.    

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 to comply with various SPS measures that they face in export 

markets.  The SPS Agreement, however, does not refer to technical cooperation and 

assistance in relation to Members’ efforts to implement the SPS Agreement itself.  In the 

SPS Committee, Members have raised concerns about technical constraints affecting 

developing countries’ ability 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 in improving the capabilities of developing countries to conduct such 

assessments.  The United States strongly supports increased technical cooperation and 

assistance in advancing Members’ risk assessment capabilities, including efforts in the 

STDF and the APEC forum.   

Trade Capacity Building   

U.S. trade capacity building activities focus on providing technical assistance and outreach 

to other WTO Members, particularly developing countries.  In the SPS area, the United 

States seeks to foster an understanding of the SPS provisions in international and bilateral 

trade agreements, including the key requirement that SPS measures be supported by 

science; the fundamentals of risk assessment; and the most effective way to build and 

administer SPS regulatory programs.  Forms of assistance include 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, the U.S. Cochran 

Fellowship Program provides training opportunities for individuals from middle‐income 

countries and emerging democracies in agricultural trade and policy; agribusiness 

development and management; animal, plant, and food sciences; extension services; 
78

agricultural marketing; and many other areas.  Individuals selected for U.S. Cochran 

Fellowship Program trainings come from both the public and private sectors.  All training 

occurs in the United States.  Training programs are designed and organized in conjunction 

with U.S. universities, USDA and other government agencies, agribusinesses, and 

consultants.   

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 country‐by‐country description of U.S. technical 

assistance on SPS‐related issues.  This list is not meant to be comprehensive, but highlights 

some of the most important activities during 2008‐09.  

Algeria

During 2008‐09, the United States provided roughly $500,000 in SPS‐related assistance to 

Algeria, including regional trade capacity building workshops, conferences, and hands‐on 

training programs.  In order to support U.S. dairy‐related exports to Algeria, the United 

States sponsored dairy regulation and dairy export certification training.  This training 

provided an in‐depth review of, and offered hands‐on experience with, U.S. dairy 

processing facilities, U.S. regulations, and U.S. dairy export certifications. 

Argentina

During 2008‐09, the United States provided over $600,000 in SPS‐related trade capacity 

building assistance to Argentina, including close to 20 regional workshops, conferences, 

and hands‐on training programs.  As part of these activities, the United States facilitated 

Argentina’s participation in a regional Codex meeting.  The United States also sponsored 

fellows under the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program for training on U.S. food inspection and 

control systems, import and export certification and risk analysis, and U.S. meat and 

poultry inspection procedures that are used to ensure food safety.   

Bahrain

During 2008‐09, the United States contributed just over $301,000 for SPS‐related regional 

and country‐specific programs that benefitted Bahrain.  For example, officials from Bahrain 

attended training on regional transboundary diseases of livestock and poultry that affect 

international trade. 
79

Barbados

During 2008‐09, the United States held SPS‐related regional trade capacity building 

seminars and hands‐on training programs to assist Barbados.  The United States 

contributed approximately $174,600 towards these activities.  In one three‐week seminar, 

government officials from Barbados were trained in meat and poultry inspection.  This 

seminar highlighted pathogen reduction; import and export policies and procedures; and 

animal production.  The U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program also sponsored two officials from 

Barbados, who received training in veterinary epidemiology, focusing on risk analysis and 

diagnostics for animal diseases. 

Bolivia

During 2008‐09, the United States contributed about $103,000 towards SPS‐related 

regional trade capacity building workshops and courses for Bolivia.  Two of these programs 

addressed animal health.  In addition, the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program sponsored a 

course focused on veterinary epidemiology and laboratory diagnosis, control, and 

eradication of transboundary animal diseases.  

Brazil

During 2008‐09, Brazil received approximately $507,000 in SPS‐related assistance in the 

form of regional trade capacity building workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on 

training programs, and visits.  The United States hosted two separate workshops on 

agricultural biotechnology and related labeling requirements in which Brazilian officials 

participated.  The United States also provided additional training for veterinary 

epidemiology and meat and dairy inspection, including instruction in Hazard Analysis and 

Critical Control Points (HACCP).  The United States has also sponsored Brazilian officials 

under the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program to study citrus, dairy and meat inspections, as 

well as wine regulatory issues. 

Cambodia

During 2008‐09, the United States contributed just over $279,000 for various SPS‐related 

activities benefitting Cambodia, including regional trade capacity building workshops, 

seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits.  Four programs offered 

training in avian veterinary epidemiology and included more than 72 Cambodian district 

veterinarians and 15 participants from the Cambodia National Veterinary Research 

Institute and its regional laboratory network.  

Chile   

During 2008‐09, Chilean officials participated in close to a dozen SPS‐related regional trade 

capacity building workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and 

visits.  The United States provided nearly $689,000 for these activities.  The United States 
80

sponsored multiple trainings for inspection officials regarding U.S. meat and poultry 

inspection with the aim of facilitating U.S. exports of these products.  This training included 

sponsorship of Chilean officials under the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program.  Chilean 

animal and plant health authorities received support and training in pre‐clearance 

programs and pest risk assessment and analysis.  The United States also sponsored a 

program, in which Chilean officials participated, to create a common Western Hemisphere 

position on biotechnology standards.   

China

During 2008‐09, Chinese officials and researchers participated in over 20 SPS‐related trade 

capacity building workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and 

visits.  The United States provided roughly $817,000 for these activities.  The United States 

sponsored programs to promote food safety and sound management of pesticides, 

including procedures for conducting human health and environmental risk assessments 

when regulating new chemical pesticides.  The United States also hosted several 

delegations of pesticide officials, representing both China’s national pesticide regulatory 

body and provincial authorities.  These officials observed U.S. technical programs and 

learned about the use of science in U.S risk assessment and risk management decisions. 

The United States sponsored other capacity building projects for China to promote animal 

health, including training on veterinary epidemiology and biologics to encourage the 

improvement of global animal health, safety, and surveillance procedures.  Biotechnology 

programs addressed labeling standards and regulatory issues on agricultural 

biotechnology, including intellectual property rights, seed genetics, and biotechnology 

safety. 

Colombia

During 2008‐09, Colombian officials, researchers, and industry representatives 

participated in over a dozen SPS‐related trade capacity building programs, for which the 

United States provided approximately $917,000.  Programs included workshops, seminars, 

conferences, hands‐on‐training, and visits to increase knowledge of food safety, animal 

health, plant health, and biotechnology.  In order to increase U.S. exports of plants to 

Colombia, the United States has conducted multiple programs addressing fruit and 

vegetable regulations and pest management.  Food safety programs have included hands‐

on training for inspection procedures and regulations used to ensure the safety of meat, 

poultry, and egg products.  The United States also funded Colombian officials to participate 

in training under the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program, focused on meat and poultry 

inspection, as well as other food safety issues.  

Costa Rica

The Trade Capacity Building (TCB) program in Costa Rica is part of a broader U.S. capacity 

building effort in CAFTA‐DR countries, and includes SPS‐related activities.  Under this 
81

program, the United States is helping Costa Rica develop its institutional capacities to 

implement a science‐based regulatory system consistent with international standards.  

Such systems create a more transparent, open, and favorable trade environment for U.S. 

exports.  SPS assistance to Costa Rica 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 uses fellowship and exchange programs 

such as the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program and the Norman E. Borlaug International 

Science and Technology Fellows Program to complement the SPS program. 

During 2008‐09, Costa Rican officials participated in over thirty SPS‐related regional trade 

capacity building workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and 

visits.  The United States contributed just over a $1 million to these regional programs.  In 

order to facilitate trade, Costa Rican plant health authorities received support and training 

in plant pest diagnostics that utilize operational and testing methods to meet U.S standards.  

Animal and human health programs included a “train‐the‐trainer” workshop on swine 

fever and new methods of testing for E. coli in meat and Salmonella in poultry.  Additional 

courses were designed to ensure the application of internationally‐recognized analytical 

methods and testing to ensure food safety. 

Dominican Republic

The TCB program in the Dominican Republic is part of a broader U.S. capacity building 

effort in CAFTA‐DR countries, and includes SPS‐related activities. Under this program, the 

United States is helping the Dominican Republic develop its institutional capacities to 

implement a science‐based regulatory system consistent with international standards.  

Such systems create a more transparent, open, and favorable trade environment for U.S. 

exports.  SPS assistance to the Dominican Republic 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 uses fellowship and 

exchange programs such as the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program and the Norman E. 

Borlaug International Science and Technology Fellows Program to complement the SPS 

program.   

During 2008‐09, the United States sponsored over thirty SPS‐related trade capacity 

building workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits to 

assist the Dominican Republic.   

In 2009, USDA’s Food for Progress grant program began a three‐year, $8 million grant in 

the agricultural and livestock sectors. Programs under this grant include SPS infrastructure 

improvement through the upgrading of laboratory infrastructure, operations, and 

analytical testing capabilities.  The Food for Progress grant program will also assist the 

Dominican Republic in developing animal health surveillance, inspection, and sanitary 

standards for animal programs; risk mitigation methods; and product traceability 

standards.  Additionally, U.S. authorities conducted multiple swine fever “train‐the‐trainer” 

workshops. 
82

Egypt

In 2007, the United States initiated a two‐year, government‐to‐government technical 

assistance program to facilitate Egypt’s ability to meet WTO SPS obligations, including WTO 

enquiry point training.  During 2008‐09, the United States contributed about $1.4 million 

for activities benefitting Egypt, including close to a dozen regional trade capacity building 

workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits.  In one 

program, U.S. officials responsible for pesticide safety met with their Egyptian counterparts 

to discuss the U.S. pesticide regulatory system and worked to develop a longer term 

pesticide laboratory training project for Egyptian chemists. 

El Salvador

The TCB program in El Salvador is part of a broader U.S. capacity building effort in the 

CAFTA‐DR countries, and includes SPS‐related activities.  As part of this program, the 

United States is helping El Salvador develop its institutional capacities in the areas of plant 

and animal health and food safety.  SPS assistance to El Salvador 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 uses 

fellowship and exchange programs such as the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program and the 

Norman E. Borlaug International Science and Technology Fellows Program to complement 

the SPS Program. 

During 2008‐09, officials from El Salvador participated in close to 40 regional trade 

capacity building workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and 

visits sponsored by the United States.  The U.S. contribution to these SPS‐related activities 

totaled over $1.5 million.  In 2008, the United States sponsored a visit by a Salvadoran 

delegation to Washington, D.C. to learn about U.S. poultry inspection systems.  The program 

aimed to demonstrate that U.S. poultry products are safe.  The United States also conducted 

bovine health laboratory training for Salvadoran officials to help ensure that they use 

quality‐controlled, standard laboratory practices in animal health in El Salvador. 

Ethiopia   

During 2008‐09, the United States provided funding of over $377,000 for SPS‐related trade 

capacity building activities benefitting Ethiopia, including workshops, seminars, 

conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits.   

Ethiopia is also a participant in a comprehensive program to enable members of the FAO 

and WHO Coordinating Committee for Africa (CCAFRICA) to participate more effectively in 

Codex and to adopt Codex and other internationally‐recognized standards related to 

agricultural trade.  For example, in September 2009, the U.S. Codex office organized a 

colloquium for CCAFRICA members on effective participation in the Codex Committee.  

Ethiopian officials participated in this event.  The United States also is helping to establish 
83

functional national Codex offices, which will promote adherence to international standards 

and participation in the specialized Codex committees.  In 2003, with U.S. assistance, 

Ethiopia established a National Codex Committee, which advises the Ethiopian government 

on food safety standards.  All of these U.S. activities complement the implementation a 

CCAFRICA strategic plan designed to strengthen and enhance the participation and 

effectiveness of CCAFRICA in Codex and of individual countries in CCAFRICA. 

Guatemala

The TCB program in Guatemala is part of a broader U.S. capacity building effort in the 

CAFTA‐DR countries, and includes SPS‐related activities.  The United States is helping 

Guatemala develop its institutional capacities in the areas of plant and animal health and 

food safety.  SPS assistance to Guatemala 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 uses fellowship and exchange 

programs such as the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program and the Norman E. Borlaug 

International Science and Technology Fellows Program to complement the SPS Program.   

During 2008‐09, Guatemala participated in close to 50 regional trade capacity building 

workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits.  The United 

States provided over $2.6 million for these SPS‐related activities.   

In 2008, a Food for Progress grant funded a NGO‐run training and technical assistance 

program on food safety and hazard assessment for meat and vegetables.  The United States 

sponsored a fellowship program for government officials to foster an understanding of U.S. 

meat and poultry regulations and procedures used to ensure a safe food supply.  The 

United States also conducted a training program concerning biotechnology that addressed 

technology development, acceptance and management of biotechnology, intellectual 

property rights and technology transfer, biotechnology commercialization, and regulatory 

policy. 

Honduras  

The TCB program in Honduras is part of a broader U.S. capacity building effort in the 

CAFTA‐DR countries, and includes SPS‐related activities.  The United States is helping 

Honduras develop its institutional capacities in the areas of plant and animal health and 

food safety.  SPS assistance to Honduras 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 uses fellowship and exchange 

programs such as the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program and the Norman E. Borlaug 

International Science and Technology Fellows Program to complement the SPS Program. 

During 2008‐09, Honduras participated in close to 40 regional trade capacity building 

workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits.  The United 

States provided around $2.5 million for these SPS‐related activities.  In 2009, the United 
84

States hosted regional microbiology laboratory training, which focused on the proper 

procedures for detecting the presence of Salmonella in poultry samples.  The United States 

also conducted two concurrent poultry health activities in Honduras.  In the first, a 

technical expert provided guidance on the Honduran poultry surveillance system and 

assisted Honduran officials with preparations for an official U.S. audit.  The goal of this 

activity was to help Honduras meet international animal health standards.  The second 

activity helped to ensure that Honduras uses quality‐controlled, standard laboratory 

practices, while strengthening overall poultry health surveillance efforts.  A team of U.S. 

animal health laboratory experts also provided specific training to Honduran officials on 

bio‐security, vaccination, pathogens and serology testing, and disease diagnosis.  

India

During 2008‐09, the United States provided roughly $464,000 for SPS activities benefitting 

India.  This assistance included over a dozen trade capacity building workshops, seminars, 

conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits.  The United States sponsored an SPS 

workshop for Indian government officials and industry representatives focusing on science, 

risk assessment, and the foundations of rulemaking.  This workshop aimed to facilitate 

greater Indian acceptance of U.S. health certification of agricultural exports and to reduce 

SPS barriers to trade.  Biotechnology workshops examined how to design socio‐economic 

assessments for biotech products, as well as the role of these assessments in the new 

biosafety regulatory framework in India.  U.S. animal health officials addressed appropriate 

technology for AI vaccine development, among other topics.  Representatives of India’s 

Food Safety and Standards Authority also met with U.S. Government pesticide regulators to 

discuss risk assessment and registration process issues for biopesticides. 

Indonesia

During 2008‐09, Indonesia participated in nearly 20 U.S.‐sponsored trade capacity building 

workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits.  These SPS‐

related activities were funded in the amount of approximately $1.8 million.  The United 

States also spent $1.2 million on AI field epidemiology workshops in Indonesia.  U.S. 

authorities sponsored five Indonesian officials to study current technological procedures 

used for handling fruits, nuts, vegetables, and ornamentals, as well as U.S. food safety and 

quarantine issues.  Indonesia also participated in an APEC regional workshop funded by 

the U.S Government, which addressed the low‐level presence of biotech material in 

agricultural commodity shipments and its implications for trade. 

Jamaica

During 2008‐09, the United States provided more than $76,000 for SPS activities 

benefitting Jamaica, including Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) 

trade capacity building workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, 

and visits.  The United States is collaborating with CARICOM in a project to help member 

countries, including Jamaica, expand intra‐regional trade by strengthening animal and 
85

plant health and food safety systems.  Jamaican officials have also participated in training 

provided under the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program, focusing on pesticide residue issues, 

and have visited U.S. pesticide regulators to discuss pesticide registration issues with 

respect to children’s health and environmental protection.  U.S. authorities also hosted a 

regional workshop on agricultural biotechnology. 

Jordan

During 2008‐09, Jordan participated in a regional SPS conference and a U.S. fellowship 

program, for which the United States provided over $194,000.  A U.S. trade capacity 

building program provided training to Jordanian officials on the creation of plant health 

systems that satisfy international plant health standards. 

Kazakhstan

During 2008‐09, the United States provided close to $369,500 to fund SPS‐related activities 

benefitting Kazakhstan, including several regional trade capacity building workshops, 

seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits.  In September 2009, the 

United States trained government officials who have a role in Kazakhstan’s WTO National 

Notification Authority and Enquiry Point.  This training addressed SPS obligations and SPS 

enquiry point management.  The U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program also sponsored Kazakh 

fellows in training in the area of advanced plant protection, quarantine, and phytosanitary 

practices.  The training covered topics related to pesticide development and regulation, as 

well as pesticide use regulations in U.S. agriculture. 

Kenya

During 2008‐09, the United States provided over $1 million in assistance to Kenya related 

to SPS issues, including over a dozen trade capacity building workshops, seminars, 

conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits.  Multiple workshops addressed 

standards, processing, and genetics in the area of dairy production.  Other animal health 

programs focused on world‐wide meat and poultry inspection practices.  Plant health 

training courses addressed subjects such as pest mitigation protocol procedures and led to 

the establishment of a national plan in Kenya for phytosanitary surveillance.  The United 

States also briefed a representative from Kenya’s Food Safety Administration on regulation 

of plant‐incorporated protectants in foods derived from biotechnology.   

Kuwait

During 2008‐09, the United States provided funding of just over $308,000 for SPS trade 

capacity building activities benefitting Kuwait.  Animal health training for Kuwaiti officials 

focused on AI and trans‐boundary diseases of livestock and poultry that affect international 

trade. 
86

Kyrgyzstan

During 2008‐09, the United States funded provided close to $203,000 in SPS‐related trade 

capacity building assistance to Kyrgyzstan.  The United States, as part of a project on 

customs and regional trade liberalization, provided expert advice to Kyrgyzstan on genetic 

engineering regulation and veterinary inspection, as well as other SPS issues.  Animal 

health training for Kyrgyz officials addressed topics on advanced animal health standards 

and analysis of diseases.  A delegation from Kyrgyzstan also visited with U.S. pesticide 

regulators to discuss pesticide food safety issues and tour U.S. analytical chemistry 

laboratory facilities.   

Laos

During 2008‐09, the United States provided $32,000 for SPS‐related trade capacity 

activities benefitting Laos.  As part of U.S. capacity building efforts, U.S. regulatory 

authorities sponsored a training workshop for Laotian authorities on poultry slaughter and 

hygiene practices. 

Malaysia

During 2008‐09, the United States provided roughly $503,000 for SPS‐related activities 

benefitting Malaysia, including trade capacity building workshops, seminars, conferences, 

hands‐on training programs, and visits.  Additionally, the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program 

sponsored training in U.S. meat and poultry inspection to help Malaysian government 

officials learn and improve their knowledge of U.S. meat and poultry regulations and 

procedures.  Malaysia also participated in an APEC regional workshop addressing the low‐

level presence of biotechnology materials in agricultural commodity shipments and its 

implications for trade. 

Mexico

During 2008‐09, Mexican officials participated in Latin American regional training under 

the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program, which offered specific programs on meat and poultry 

inspection.  Mexican officials learned about U.S. inspection procedures and regulations that 

are used to ensure that U.S. meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, and 

properly labeled.  The United States provided around $74,000 for this training program. 

Morocco

During 2008‐09, the United States provided almost $650,000 for SPS‐related activities 

benefitting Morocco, including several regional trade capacity building workshops, 

seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits.  One training session was 

designed to help Morocco develop science‐based SPS regulations in order to reduce 

barriers to agricultural trade.  Another program provided information and technology to 

equip Morocco with diagnosis techniques for monitoring and evaluating BSE in the country. 
87

Nicaragua

The TCB program in Nicaragua is part of a broader U.S. capacity building effort in the 

CAFTA‐DR countries, and includes SPS‐related activities.  As part of this program, the 

United States is helping Nicaragua develop its institutional capacities in the areas of plant 

and animal health and food safety.  SPS assistance to Nicaragua 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 uses fellowship 

and exchange programs such as the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program and the Norman E. 

Borlaug International Science and Technology Fellows Program to complement the SPS 

Program. 

During 2008‐09, Nicaraguan officials participated in close to 30 regional trade capacity 

building workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits.  The 

United States provided approximately $1.3 million to fund these SPS‐related activities.  In 

2009, Nicaraguan officials participated in a regional workshop on agricultural 

biotechnology to help create a common position on this issue in the Western Hemisphere.  

The United States also conducted several training programs focused on improving pest 

diagnostic and pest risk assessment in Nicaragua, specifically addressing priority plant 

pests and diseases. 

Nigeria

During 2008‐09, Nigerian officials participated in a dozen U.S.‐sponsored regional trade 

capacity building workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and 

visits.  The United States provided over $500,000 in funding for these SPS‐related activities.  

The United States also conducted several training programs focused on improving pest 

diagnostic and pest risk assessment in Nigeria, specifically addressing priority plant pests 

and diseases.  Another program involved an assessment of Nigeria’s SPS policies.  This 

assessment served as a tool to identify opportunities for further technical assistance 

programs and to help increase harmonization of SPS standards and policies in Nigeria. 

   

Oman

During 2008‐09, Omani officials and researchers participated in half a dozen U.S.‐

sponsored regional trade capacity building workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on 

training programs, and visits.  The United States provided approximately $445,000 for 

these SPS‐related activities.  As part of a program funded by the U.S. Government, the 

University of Nebraska also hosted a governmental delegation from Oman to observe U.S. 

integrated food safety and quality management practices.  The program included U.S. 

producers, processors, handlers, retailers, inspection agencies, and consumers. 
88

Panama

During 2008‐09, the United States provided slightly over $1 million for SPS‐related 

programs benefitting Panama, including close to 20 regional trade capacity building 

workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and visits.  The United 

States also funded training in food safety for Panamanian officials under the U.S. Cochran 

Fellowship Program.  In addition to sponsoring multiple microbiology laboratory training 

programs, the United States was instrumental in convening the “First National Laboratories 

Meeting of the Veterinary Services of the Americas” in Panama City, Panama in 2008 to 

assist and encourage governments in the region to implement OIE standards for animal 

health and zoonosis. 

Paraguay

During 2008‐09, Paraguayan officials participated in around half a dozen U.S.‐ sponsored 

regional trade capacity building workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training 

programs, and visits.  The United States provided close to $570,000 for these SPS‐related 

activities.  Under the auspices of the U.S Cochran Fellowship Program, Paraguayan officials 

also learned about U.S. inspection procedures and regulations used to ensure that U.S. 

meat, poultry, and egg products are properly labeled. 

Peru

During 2008‐09, Peruvian officials, researches, and industry representatives participated in 

a dozen U.S.‐sponsored regional trade capacity building workshops, seminars, conferences, 

hands‐on training programs, and visits.  The United States provided approximately 

$809,000 for these SPS‐related activities.  Peru’s agency for national animal and plant 

health and food safety requested an expert team of U.S. regulatory officials to assist in 

developing specific regulations that included food safety monitoring and enforcement 

measures.  The United States designed a program in response to this request.   Under the 

auspices of the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program, the United States also sponsored training 

for Peruvian officials in the area of food safety.   

Philippines

During 2008‐09, Philippines officials participated in a dozen regional SPS‐related trade 

capacity building workshops, seminars, conferences, hands‐on training programs, and 

visits.  U.S. funding for these activities totaled over $2.3 million.  Philippines officials 

participated in a two‐week and a three‐week seminar on meat and poultry inspection 

procedures to improve knowledge of HACCP, pathogen reduction, and import and export 

policies and procedures for the United States and other countries. 
89

Qatar

During 2008‐09, Qatari officials participated in a few U.S.‐sponsored regional trade 

capacity building conferences and a training program.  The United States provided 

approximately $301,000 for these SPS‐related activities.  One of these programs focused on 

trans‐boundary diseases of livestock and poultry that affect international trade and that are 

particularly relevant for GCC countries.   

Saudi Arabia

During 2008‐09, the United States provided approximately $412,000 in SPS‐related trade 

capacity building assistance to Saudi Arabia in the form of regional workshops and training 

programs.  One training program addressed trans‐boundary diseases of livestock and 

poultry that affect international trade, while another covered methods of pesticide residue 

detection.   

South Africa

During 2008‐09, South African officials and industry representatives participated in a 

dozen U.S.‐sponsored regional trade capacity building conferences, workshops, and 

trainings programs.  The United States provided funding of just over $545,000 for these 

SPS‐related activities.  These activities included biotechnology programs that addressed 

regulatory policy for biotechnology, relevant research, technology development, 

acceptance and management of biotechnology, and technology transfer.   

Sri Lanka

During 2008‐09, Sri Lanka officials participated in two SPS‐related trade capacity building 

fellowships and training programs, funding for which totaled about $35,500.  The U.S. 

Cochran Fellowship Program also sponsored three Sri Lankan fellows to attend potato seed 

development training.  

The United States also funded training in biotechnology and biosafety for several Sri 

Lankan scientists and regulators at Michigan State University.  The most recent regulator to 

participate in this program was a senior regulator for agricultural biotechnology.    

Thailand

During 2008‐09, Thailand participated in over a dozen U.S.‐sponsored regional trade 

capacity building conferences and training programs.  The United States provided almost 

$732,000 for these SPS‐related activities.  Programs included a conference on the WTO SPS 

Agreement.  The United States also hosted three officials from Thailand’s National Food 

Institute to discuss Codex and various aspects of U.S. food safety regulations and related 

programs.  In November 2008, U.S. Government personnel traveled to Bangkok to discuss 

the risk assessment process for plant‐incorporated protectants in agricultural 
90

biotechnology with representatives of Thailand’s National Center for Genetic Engineering 

and Biotechnology, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Natural Resources and 

Environment.  The discussion focused on food and feed safety aspects of foods derived 

from biotechnology.   

United Arab Emirates

During 2008‐09, officials of the United Arab Emirates participated in U.S.‐sponsored 

regional SPS‐related trade capacity building conferences and training programs, including a 

workshop that focused on building regional capacity to meet international phytosanitary 

standards for pest risk systems.  The United States provided about $346,000 for these 

programs. 

Uruguay

During 2008‐09, Uruguayan officials, researchers, and industry representatives 

participated in a dozen U.S.‐sponsored regional SPS‐related trade capacity building 

conferences and trainings programs.  The United States provided approximately $916,000 

for these activities.  Programs included AI laboratory diagnostic training, as well as 

multiple trainings to improve the knowledge of Uruguayan officials with respect to U.S. 

meat and poultry regulations and procedures. 

Uzbekistan

During 2008‐09, Uzbek officials participated in two U.S.‐sponsored regional SPS‐related 

trade capacity building programs.  The United States provided over $136,000 for these 

programs.  Under the auspices of the U.S. Cochran Fellowship Program, Uzbek officials also 

learned about animal health issues, including new diagnostic methods, advanced animal 

health standards, and services to control animal diseases.   

Vietnam

During 2008‐09, Vietnamese officials participated in over a dozen U.S.‐sponsored regional 

trade capacity building conferences and trainings programs.  The United States provided 

nearly $955,000 to fund these SPS‐related activities.  These programs included training on 

biotechnology regulatory policy, research, technology development and transfer, and 

biotechnology commercialization and communication.  The United States also conducted 

several training programs for Vietnamese officials that addressed meat and poultry 

inspection procedures.  At a November 2008 ASEAN conference in Da Lat, Vietnam, the 

United States presented an overview of the U.S. regulatory system for agricultural products 

derived from biotechnology. 
91

APPENDIX

USTR received public comments regarding this report from the following entities: 

AgBiotech Planning Committee 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

American Potato Trade Alliance 

Biotech Industry Organization 

Blue Diamond Growers 

California Cherry Advisory Board 

California Table Grape Commission 

Corn Refiners Association 

Council for Responsible Nutrition 

Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. 

Grocery Manufacturers Association 

National Association of Animal Breeders 

National Confectioners Association 

National Pork Producers Council 

National Milk Producers Federation 

Northwest Horticultural Council 

Pennsylvania Farm Bureau 

Pet Food Institute 

R‐CALF USA 

Society of Plastic s Industry 

Troy Corporation 

Underwriters Laboratories 

U.S. Hop Industry 

U.S. Meat Export Federation 

U.S. Wheat Association 

USA Poultry and Egg Export Council 

USA Rice Federation 

Wine Institute 

Yum Restaurants, Intl.  
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508