RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
15 February 2002
(02-0789)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS
Note by the Secretariat
Revision
At the 15-16 March 2000 meeting of the SPS Committee, the Secretariat was requested to
prepare a paper summarizing the specific trade concerns that had been brought to the Committee's
attention.1  This second revision includes all issues which have been raised at SPS Committee
meetings through the twenty-second regular meeting of the Committee on 31 October –1 November 2001.
The issues are divided into those concerned with food safety, animal health, plant health and
others, and listed in alphabetical order according to the country maintaining the measure in question.
Where one issue concerns both food safety and animal health, it is included under food safety, exceptfor BSE concerns, which will be found in the animal health section.
Resolution of the specific concerns raised has been explicitly reported to the Committee for a
limited number of matters only.  These are noted in the summary table at the beginning of each item.
Prior to the October 2001 Committee meeting, the Secretariat brought to the attention of Membersthose issues for which no new information had been provided during 2001.  Several Members
responded by providing an update at the October 2001 meeting, and these updates have been included
in this revision.
2  Members are encouraged to inform the Committee of the current status of all trade
concerns identified in this document.
                                                     
1 G/SPS/R/18, para. 20.
2 G/SPS/R/25, paras. 32-37.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
I. FOOD SAFETY .................................................................................................................. ......6
1. Australia – Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid................................6
2. Australia and New Zealand – Import restrictions on cheese ................................................63. Belgium - Measures regardi ng canned tuna in oil .................................................................7
4. Brazil - Import req uirements for wine....................................................................................7
5. Canada - Importation of cheese............................................................................................... 8
6. Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Slovak Republic – Zero-
tolerance for salmonella  in imported poultry products.........................................................8
7. Czech Republic - Prohibition of poultry meat imports from Thailand ...............................9
8. Egypt - Restrictions on canned tuna .....................................................................................109. European Communities - Regulations on genetically modified food and feed..................10
10. European Communities - Directive  2000/42 on pesticide residues.....................................11
11. European Communities - Legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ) ...................11
12. European Communities - Import restrictions on soy sauce................................................11
13. European Communities - Information on dioxin.................................................................12
14. European Communities - Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation ...................13
15. European Communities - Notification  G/SPS/N/EEC/62 of emergency measures
on citrus pulp................................................................................................................. ..........14
16. European Communities - Measure on es tablishments operating in the animal
feed sector .................................................................................................................... ............14
17. European Communities - Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins)
in food stuffs .................................................................................................................. ...........15
18. European Communities – Trade restrictions in response to cholera.................................17
19. Iceland's notification on meat and meat products ...............................................................18
20. Korea – Import ban on frozen poultry .................................................................................1821. Korea – Shelf-life requirements............................................................................................. 19
22. Malaysia and Singapore - Noti fications related  to dioxin ...................................................20
23. Panama - Restrictions on  milk powder imports...................................................................20
24. Poland - Requirements for imports of milk and milk products .........................................21
25. Spain – Restriction on levels of copper and cadmium in imported squid..........................2126. Switzerland -  Notifications regarding import requirements on meat and eggs ...............22
27. United States - Notification G/SPS/ N/USA/133 on refrigeration and labelling
requirements for shell eggs .................................................................................................... 22
II. ANIMAL HEALTH AND ZOONOS ES ...............................................................................23
A. I
SSUES RELATED TO TSE S.........................................................................................................23G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 3
28. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States - Import
restrictions affecting BS E-free countries ..............................................................................23
29. Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine semen, milk and milk products......................24
30. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic,
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Po land, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, United States and others – Measures related to BSE ..............................25
31. Canada - Measures related to BSE........................................................................................28
32. European Communities – Measures related to BSE............................................................28
33. France – Certification req uirements for pet food................................................................34
34. Hungary - Restrictions related to BSE..................................................................................35
35. India – Import restricti ons on bovine semen........................................................................35
36. Israel - Notification G/SPS/N/ISR/2 on TSE-related import restrictions of live
cattle ......................................................................................................................... ................37
37. Israel – Measures affecting imports of bovine meat ............................................................37
38. Poland - Notifications on veterinary measures and measures on animal products
including gelati n.............................................................................................................. ........37
39. South Africa - Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from member States of the
European Communities..........................................................................................................3 8
40. United States – Measu res related to BSE .............................................................................39
B. ISSUES RELATED TO FOOT -AND-MOUTH DISEASE (FMD) .........................................................39
41. Canada and the United States - Import restrictions due to FMD ......................................39
42. Certain Members - FMD-related import restrictions .........................................................40
43. Chile - FMD restrictions.................................................................................................... .....41
44. Indonesia - FMD restrictions ................................................................................................ .41
45. Japan - Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top from Indonesia.............................42
46. Japan - Measures regarding FMD ........................................................................................42
47. Korea – Import restrictions on beef ......................................................................................43
48. Mexico - Import rest rictions on beef.....................................................................................43
49. Norway – Restrictions on gelatin imports ............................................................................43
50. Romania - Notification G/SPS/N/ROM/3 on FMD measures .............................................44
51. Slovenia - Notification G/SPS/N/SVN/8 on FMD measures ................................................44
52. Turkey – Import ban on livestock .........................................................................................44
C. OTHER ISSUES CONCERNING ANIMAL HEALTH ..........................................................................45
53. Australia - Import restrictions on prawn and prawn products..........................................45
54. Argentina - Temporary prohibition of fresh pork and products .......................................46
55. Australia - Notification G/SPS/N/AUS/72 on quarantine requirements for
chicken meat................................................................................................................... .........46
56. Australia – Ban on salmon imports.......................................................................................47G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 4
57. Bolivia - Restrictions on  poultry meat imports ....................................................................47
58. Czech Republic – Regulation concerning warehouses and silos.........................................48
59. El Salvador – Restrictions on meat and dairy products......................................................48
60. European Communities - Ban on antibiotics in feed ...........................................................48
61. European Communities – Salmonella-related restriction on fishmeal imports ................49
62. India – Restrictions on imports of horses .............................................................................4963. United States - Regionalization in relation to animal health ..............................................49
64. Venezuela - Import conditions for pork meat and products...............................................50
65. Venezuela – Measures related to Avian Influenza...............................................................50
III. PLANT HEALTH............................................................................................................... ....50
66. Australia - Access of Ca lifornia tabl e grapes .......................................................................50
67. Australia – Notification  on methyl bromide.........................................................................51
68. Australia – Import restrictions on durian ............................................................................5269. Australia – Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit..................................................52
70. Brazil – Import prohibition of coconut palms and related products .................................53
71. Brazil – Restrictions on imported wheat ..............................................................................53
72. Canary Islands - Phytosanitary regulations .........................................................................54
73. Chile – Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit..............................................................5474. Cuba - Restrictions on apples and pears...............................................................................55
75. Czech Republic - Imports of potatoes ...................................................................................55
76. European Communities - Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/131 regarding cut flowers ............55
77. European Communities - Measures on imports of Egyptian potatoes...............................56
78. European Communities - G/SPS/N/EEC/93 on wood packing material............................5679. European Communities - Citrus canker...............................................................................57
80. European Communities – Protected zones ...........................................................................57
81. Honduras – Restrictions on imports of rough rice...............................................................58
82. Indonesia - Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit.........................................................58
83. Indonesia - Fresh fruit and vegetables..................................................................................5984. Japan - Import measures on fire blight ................................................................................59
85. Japan – Testing requirements for differ ent varieties of apples, cherries and
nectarines..................................................................................................................... ............60
86. Japan - Plant quarantine regulations....................................................................................60
87. Japan - Notification on amendment of  the Japanese Plant Protection Law......................61
88. Mexico – Import prohib ition of milled rice ..........................................................................61
89. New Zealand - Proposed import prohibition of commodity-country
combinations of fresh cu t flowers and foliage ......................................................................63G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 5
90. Panama – Requirements for certification of consumer rice................................................63
91. Phytosanitary issu es in general............................................................................................. .64
92. Poland – Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds ........................................................................64
93. Slovak Republic – Restrictions on imports of apples, pears and quinces..........................64
94. Slovak Republic – Import restrictions on potatoes..............................................................65
95. Switzerland - Notification on  wheat, rye and triticale.........................................................66
96. Turkey - Restrictions on banana imports.............................................................................66
97. United States - Import restrictions on potted plants from the European
Communities.................................................................................................................... ........67
98. United States – Import s of citrus fruit ..................................................................................67
99. United States – Import restrictions on rhododendrons in growing medium.....................68
100. United States – Interim rule affect ing solid wood packaging material..............................68
101. United States - Actions ta ken by local governments............................................................69
102. Venezuela - Phytosanitary requirement s for garlic and potato imports ...........................69
IV. OTHER CONCERNS .............................................................................................................7 0
103. European Communities - Agricultural  biotechnology approval processes .......................70
104. Korea – Import clearance measures and practices..............................................................70
105. Japan and Korea - Translation of regulations .....................................................................71G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 6
I. FOOD SAFETY
1. Australia – Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid
Raised by: Philippines
Supported by: Malaysia
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 83-85), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13,
paras. 24-25), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 68), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19,
para. 21), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 36)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/106;  see also G/SPS/13, G/SPS/GEN/137 and
G/SPS/W/107/Rev.1
Solution (if reported): Australian tolerance level modified in June 2000. In October 2001, the
Philippines confirmed that sauces were no longer being detained.
1. In September 1998, the Philippines voiced concerns that Australia's import prohibition on
Philippine sauces containing benzoic acid were discriminatory, since sauces from New Zealand wereallowed entry even if they contained benzoic acid.  Australia indicated willingness to pursue this
matter with the Philippines.  Both Members noted the absence of an international standard for benzoic
acid in sauces.  In November 1998, the Philippines reported that bilateral consultations had not been
successful.  Australia explained that the different rules applying to sauces from New Zealand were
transitional, and stemmed from a treaty establishing a common food standards system for bothcountries.  Australia expected that the final standard for food additives would be implemented in the
first half of 1999.
2. In July 1999, the Philippines again reported on bilateral consultations.  Completion of
Australia's new food code was foreseen for late 1999.  Australia confirmed that benzoic acid would be
allowed as an additive under the new food standards code.
3. In June 2000, the Philippines requested an update of the situation from Australia.  Australia
reported that the relevant part of the Australian Food Standards Code had been revised.  The present
restriction on benzoic acid would be removed and replaced on 22 June 2000 with a tolerance level of
1000 milligrams per kilogram for benzoates in sauces, applicable to all products sold in the Australian
market, whether domestic or imported.
4. In October 2001, the Philippines confirmed that Australia had modified the tolerance level for
benzoic acid in sauces, and that detention of Philip pine sauces in Australia due to benzoic acid had
not been noted in Hold Order Lists since June 2000.
2. Australia and New Zealand – Import restrictions on cheese
Raised by: European Communities, Switzerland
Supported by:
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11 and Corr.1, paras. 41-42b), November 1998
(G/SPS/R/13, paras. 21-23), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 9-13),November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/80, G/SPS/N/AUS/107, G/SPS/N/NZL/48
Solution (if reported): Switzerland reported that a mutually satisfactory solution had been found.
5. In June 1998, Switzerland reported that, without advance notice, New Zealand and Australia
had stopped imports of hard cheeses made from unpasteurized milk, on the grounds that they did not
meet the sanitary requirements.  Australia and New Zealand responded that the relevant import
measure required inactivation of pathogenic organisms.  This measure had been put in place beforeG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 7
1 January 1995 and therefore not been notified, but compliance had recently been reinforced.
ANZFA was evaluating the applications received from Switzerland and the European Communities.
6. In November 1998, the European Communities requested Australia to identify the
international standard on which its import ban on Roquefort cheese was based, or to provide scientific
justification and a risk assessment.  Australia responded that its food standards required all cheese to
be made from pasteurized milk, or milk that had undergone an equivalent process.  Australia's riskassessment on Roquefort cheese had identified potential problems with pathogenic micro-organisms,
in particular entero-hemorrhagic E-coli.  Further data from the Roquefort manufacturers had been
received and were being evaluated.  In addition to food safety assessments, Roquefort cheese was
being evaluated for risks to animal health.  Draft revised import conditions would be notified soon,
and comments solicited.  A final decision was likely in the first quarter of 1999 on both food safety
and animal health aspects.
7. In March 1999, Switzerland asked about the progress of ANZFA's procedures. Australia
responded that ANZFA had conducted a risk assessment.  The documentation would be published on
17 March 1999 for public comment, after which a final recommendation would be made.  Swiss
officials in Canberra would be briefed on 16 March 1999.  Regarding EC concerns, Australia reported
that according to a risk assessment initiated by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA),
French Roquefort did not comply with Australian re quirements.  French officials in Canberra would
be briefed on the issue.  In November 2000, Switzerland reported that a mutually satisfactory solution
had been found.
3. Belgium - Measures regarding canned tuna in oil
Raised by: Philippines
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, paras. 87-88)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported):
8. The Philippines expressed concern regarding a Belgian decision to withdraw from sale
Philippine canned tuna in oil based on allegations of contamination with biphenol-A-diglycydyl and
biphenol-F-diglycydyl.  The European Communities responded that following reports of a possible
contamination, a Belgian supermarket had withdrawn the product from sale.  The EuropeanCommunities was unaware of any actions taken by the Belgian authorities, but offered to pursue the
matter on a bilateral basis with the Philippines.
4. Brazil - Import requirements for wine
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para. 13), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 23)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/13/Rev.1
Solution (if reported):
9. In May 1996, the European Communities expressed concern that proposed Brazilian import
requirements for wine had not been notified.  The European Communities was concerned that Brazilwas apparently requiring that establishments in exporting countries be inspected and approved by
Brazilian authorities.  The European Communities considered its own requirements for wine
production to be at least equivalent to those in Brazil  with respect to the safety of the product for theG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 8
consumer, and planned to present written comments to Brazil once an SPS notification had been
made.
10. In March 1997, the European Communities questioned Brazil's measure on wine exports,
notified as G/SPS/N/BRA/13/Rev.1 on 6 February 1997, stating that it was not clear what
requirements producers faced.  The European Communities questioned whether inspection
requirements for individual establishments were based on science, and expressed concern overcertification requirements for individual consignments rather than more general, generic types of
certification.  Brazil noted that the proposed legislation would not be adopted before 16 May 1997,
and that the full text of the proposed legislation was available from the Brazilian Enquiry Point.
Although Brazil insisted that its legislation was in conformity with the SPS Agreement, and not
substantially different from legislation in place in several European countries, it was open for bilateral
discussions on the subject.
5. Canada - Importation of cheese
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by: Switzerland
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para. 14)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CAN/8
Solution (if reported):
11. The European Communities raised concerns with a proposed Canadian requirement that
cheese be pasteurized or produced from pasteurized milk.  The European Communities considered
that its measures, including production requirements, safe and correct sourcing and subsequent
supervision in the various production stages from farm to consumer, provided at least equivalent
guarantees in terms of food safety.  The European Communities observed that a number of Membersmaintained restrictions on imports of raw milk cheeses from the European Communities which were
not justifiable on health grounds.  Canada noted that on request it would provide scientific
documentation in support of the proposal, and that an expert advisory committee had been appointed
to examine the matter.
6. Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Slovak Republic – Zero-tolerance for
salmonella  in imported poultry products
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, paras. 18-25), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.
52-53), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GN/3, G/SPS/N/CZE/8, G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported):
12. In October 1996, the United States indicated that a number of Members discriminated
between standards for control of salmonella  in domestic versus imported poultry products.  Chile, the
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Slovakia and Honduras applied so-called zero-tolerance standards,
which was a misleading name since none of these Members appeared to have eradication or
surveillance systems in place to establish non-existence of salmonella  in domestic products.
13. The Slovak Republic responded that it did not apply a zero-tolerance standard, but rather
required ante- and post-mortem treatment of slaughter poultry, for domestic and imported poultry
meat.  The Czech Republic clarified that its regulations required negative results on salmonella  tests
in poultry holdings and slaughterhouses.  Czech requirements were laid out in the Draft Law onG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 9
Foodstuff and Tobacco Products to be adopted in 1997, notified as G/SPS/N/CZE/8.  No assurances
had been received from the United States that these requirements would be met.  The Czech Republic
suggested bilateral consultations between veterinary experts.  The representatives of Honduras and El
Salvador indicated that they would inform their authorities of the statement made by the United
States.
14. Chile observed that bilateral consultations on salmonella  had started in 1992.  The US
concern was probably due to a misunderstanding of Chile's sanitary requirements, which required
tests to determine the level of salmonella.  The resu lt was compared with the level of prevalence in the
exporting country, which was part of Chile's risk assessment procedure.  Chile was aware that the
United States had difficulties in complying with this requirement given the high level of prevalence of
salmonella  domestically.  Given the US situation, the Chilean government was prepared to show a
certain flexibility and would consider imports of irradiated poultry from the United States as a
possible alternative.
15. In March 1997, the United States reiterated its concerns.  In particular, Chile had not
substantiated its claim that salmonella was less prevalent in domestic poultry stocks compared to the
imported product, and the Czech Republic continued to maintain a zero-tolerance policy.
Furthermore, the United States was interested to  know when legislation would be implemented to
harmonize requirements for poultry meat imports in the Central American Common market.  Inresponse, Chile recalled its arguments made at the previous meeting, and remained open to further
discussion with the United States.  In February 2001, the Czech Republic reported that its new Law on
Foodstuff and Tobacco Products had been adopted (decree 298/1997), and than it had been in contact
with the United States since then.
16. In July 2001, the United States reported that it was still discussing the matter with Chile
(G/SPS/GEN/265).
7. Czech Republic - Prohibition of poultry meat imports from Thailand
Raised by: Thailand
Supported by:
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 81-82), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13,
paras. 39-40), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 16), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15,
para. 8), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 5)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CZE/16
Solution (if reported): Czech measure lifted in October 1999.
17. In September 1998, Thailand indicated that since June 1998, the Czech Republic had stopped
shipments of poultry meat from Thailand on the grounds that it contained levels of arsenic acid above
the acceptable Czech limits.  Thailand indicated that this measure was not scientifically justified andtoo trade restrictive, and asked whether the measure was non-discriminatory.  The Czech Republic
indicated that bilateral consultations had begun and would continue, and assured Thailand of the non-
discriminatory nature of its testing methodology.
18. In November 1998, Thailand reported that bilateral consultations had been held, and that the
Czech Republic had agreed to provide further clarifications on the measure, as well as a scientificjustification.  The Czech Republic indicated that the exchange of information would take place before
a mission of Czech experts to Thailand in the near future.
19. In March 1999, Thailand and the Czech Republic reported that bilateral consultations were
progressing, and that the problem might be resolved after a visit of Czech experts to Thailand,G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 10
planned for April 1999.  In July 1999, Thailand reported that the visit of Czech experts had been re-
scheduled for September 1999.  The Czech Republic confirmed that consultations were advancing.  In
November 1999, the Chairman informed the Committee that the Czech Republic had recently notified
the lifting of the measure from 1 October 1999.
8. Egypt - Restrictions on canned tuna
Raised by: Thailand
Supported by:
Dates raised: June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, paras. 103-104)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/203
Solution (if reported): Formal consultations requested by Thailand.
20. Thailand, acknowledging Egypt's decision to restrict food imports containing genetically
modified organisms (GMOs), insisted that Thai  canned tuna did not contain soybean oil produced
from genetically modified plants.  Thailand noted that  it was not possible to identify the origin of
soybean oil since the final processing stages destroyed genetic material.  Thailand considered the
restrictions on Thai canned tuna to be discriminatory, and asked the Egyptian Government to lift the
restrictions as soon as possible.  Egypt took note of Thailand's concerns and agreed to report back to
the Committee in due course.
9. European Communities - Regulations on genetically modified food and feed
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Argentina, Canada
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 40-44)
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/EEC/6 and 7
Solution (if reported):
21. The United States expressed concerns that the EC proposals on traceability and labelling of
agricultural biotechnology products had been notified only under the TBT Agreement and not the SPSAgreement, although the proposals made it clear that they were intended to address unforeseen
adverse effects to human and animal health.  Canada and the United States sought clarification as to
whether the draft regulations covered food safety or human health.  Argentina noted that genetically
modified food did not affect health, and that the compulsory labelling required by the proposed EC
regulation was not consistent with the TBT Agreement.  Argentina sought clarification as to whetherthe labelling requirements extended to pharmaceutical products for human or animal use.
22. The European Communities observed that requests to prolong the consultation period had
been accepted and this period would run until the end of the year.  The main objective of the proposed
regulations was to ensure that consumers were duly informed of the products they bought.  Two other
key issues were traceability and labelling. The labelling of pharmaceuticals containing GMingredients was covered by different legislation.  The European Communities stated that discussions
should continue in the TBT Committee.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 11
10. European Communities - Directive 2000/42 on pesticide residues
Raised by: Côte d'Ivoire
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 136-137)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
23. Côte d'Ivoire expressed concern regarding new EC maximum residue levels (MRLs) for
pesticides in fruits and vegetables, which would affect Côte d'Ivoire's exports of pineapples, mangoes,papayas, cashew nuts, passion fruits and green beans.  Small farmers in Côte d'Ivoire would be
affected.  The MRLs did not seem to be consistent, or to be based on a pertinent risk assessment, for
example in the case of Ethephon.  Technical questions posed in April 2001 through different channels
had remained without answer.  Although technical assistance for pineapple production was planned, it
had not been carried out before the entry into force of the EC directive.  Côte d'Ivoire requestedwaivers from the EC directive.  Once the planned technical assistance had been carried out, adequate
MRLs could be set with the collaboration of Codex.  The European Communities recalled that one
year ago the Committee had been informed of an EC decision to delay for one year the application of
a series of MRLs for ACP countries.  The year had now passed, and the directive was being
implemented.  Special and differential treatment had not solved the problem.  For discontinuedsubstances, the MRLs were set at detection levels; this was international practice.  The European
Communities would consider Côte d'Ivoire's request.
11. European Communities - Legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ)
Raised by: Israel
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 128-129)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
24. Israel was concerned that legislation being cons idered by the European Parliament would ban
fungicide residues in fruit juices, although they were considered safe according to Codex standards.
Israel saw no scientific justification for banning the use of these fungicides, and believed this would
create unnecessary trade barriers.  Israel had raised both with the European Communities and withGermany a problem regarding German law which restricted residues of TBZ and Imazalil in citrus
juices to such low levels that in effect this constituted a ban.  Israel requested a clarification regarding
the EC position on the European Parliament initiative.  The European Communities explained that the
European Parliament could introduce amendments to  Commission proposals, and that Israel would be
kept informed of the situation.
12. European Communities - Import restrictions on soy sauce
Raised by: Thailand on behalf of ASEAN
Supported by: Korea
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  36-39), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 11-
14), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 106)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/100
Solution (if reported):
25. In March 2001, Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, raised concerns with an EC regulation which
set new maximum levels for lead, cadmium, mercury and 3-MPCD in foodstuffs.  ASEAN believedG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 12
that the EC maximum level of 3-MCPD in soy sauce was too low to be practicable, and constituted an
unnecessary barrier to trade.  ASEAN asked the European Communities to provide technical
information in order to reach a mutually satisfacto ry solution.  Korea asked to be informed about the
outcome of bilateral consultations between the European Communities and Thailand.  The European
Communities stated that several of its member States had detected high levels of 3-MCPD in samples
of soy sauce.  Recent toxicological studies had indicated that the substance acted as a non-genotoxiccarcinogen in vivo .  The European Communities believed that maximum levels should be set to
encourage good manufacturing practices and to protect the health of consumers.  A proposed
Commission Regulation set such limits, and was currently under examination.  Thailand had been
informed of the 3-MCPD levels reported in soy sauce from one manufacturer, but had not responded.
26. In July 2001, the European Communities informed the Committee that the Scientific
Committee of Food had recently revised its opinion on 3-MCPD in light of new toxicological
information, concluding that 3-MCPD was not genotoxic in humans.  A tolerable daily intake hadbeen set at 2 µg per kg of body weight.  A maximum level for 3-MCPD, to take effect in April 2002,
had been set at 0.02 mg/kg for both hydrolized vegetable protein and soy sauce.  However, in light of
the new scientific opinion, the European Communities would consider whether the current maximum
level remained appropriate.  The United States indicated that the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee
on Food Additives (JECFA) had re-evaluated the safe ty of chlorinated propanols, and concluded that
a person should not consume more than 120 mg/day of these contaminants.  The Codex representative
added that the need to establish maximum levels for these contaminants would be considered by
JECFA in March 2002.
27. In October 2001, Thailand indicated that it had taken measures to establish maximum 3-
MCPD limits and to modify production processes to lower rates of contamination; its industry
expected to be able to meet a 1 mg/kg limit within one year.  JECFA had set a provisional maximum
daily threshold level at 2 micrograms/kg of body weight per day.  Based on this limit for a person of
50 kg bodyweight, a safe daily consumption of up to 10 g should be allowable.  However, Thailand
noted that the limits applied by Members differed widely.
13. European Communities - Information on dioxin
Raised by: None, information provided by the European Communities.
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 17-22), March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 19),
June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, para. 9)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/123 and Add.1-4
Solution (if reported):
28. In July 1999, the European Communities provided information on the dioxin contamination
which had occurred in Belgium in January 1999, and on the steps it had taken to manage the health
risks.  Many countries had responded by imposing trade restrictions.  The European Communities
stressed that there was no longer any justification for maintaining import bans, regretting that several
countries had not notified their bans.  The European Communities reserved its right to take action
with regard to unjustified trade barriers.
29. Malaysia expressed disappointment to be receiving information at such a late stage.  It would
only be in a position to lift its import ban when it was fully satisfied that there was no more danger
from EC products.  Australia, Canada, Chile, Brazil, South Africa and the United States appreciated
the information provided by the European Communities throughout the dioxin crisis.  Australia and
the United States had notified any action taken with respect to dioxin.  Canada had banned BelgianG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 13
imports, but was reviewing the products and areas covered by the ban.  The Philippines indicated that
its measures had taken into account the EC measures regarding dioxin, and were being reassessed.
30. The WHO noted that it had convened an expert consultation in 1998 to evaluate the tolerable
daily dose of dioxin to which humans could be expos ed without harm.  Codex reported that at the July
1999 meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, countries had requested that an
intergovernmental group prepare a code of practice on animal feed.  The European Communitiesadded that it had established a working group within its Standing Committee on Animal Nutrition
which was examining legislation regarding animal nutrition to prevent future accidents.
31. In March 2000, the European Communities provided an update on the dioxin situation.  While
some Members had adjusted their trade measures as the situation evolved, others continued to apply
unnecessarily strict measures.  The European Co mmunities looked forward to receiving answers to
the questions it had raised in G/SPS/GEN/123/Add.3.
32. In June 2000, the European Communities explained that all previously restricted products
could be circulated and exported without any additional certification.  While there was a general
acceptance by Members that EC and Belgian products no longer represented a health risk, some
Members had neither lifted their measures nor responded to a January 2000 letter requesting that they
remove them.  The European Communities repeated th at it reserved its right to take any necessary
action with regard to unjustified trade barriers.
14. European Communities - Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 37-38), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para.
127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/61, G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported):
33. In September 1998, the United States sought clarification on the EC measure on food and
food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation.  The United States was taking similar steps towards
recognizing that this technology could play a role in ensuring the wholesomeness and safety of food,
and had sent official comments to the European Communities.  However, the United States
emphasized that the list of products provided in an annex to the EC directive should be expanded tocover other food products such as pork, beef, poultry, fruits and vegetables.  The United States also
requested explanation of how the approval process for treatment facilities worked.  The European
Communities indicated that the US suggestions would be forwarded to the competent EC services.
34. In a document introduced in July 2001, the United States reported that two EC directives on
food irradiation had been adopted in 1999 (G/SPS/GEN /265).  So far, only dried aromatic herbs,
spices and vegetable seasonings had been included in the positive list.  One of the directives required
that the Commission draft a proposal by 31 December 2000.  The Commission had published a
consultation paper, describing a possible strategy for expanding the positive list.  After considering
comments, the Commission would submit the paper to the Council and the European Parliament.  The
United Stated had sent comments on the consultation paper in January 2001, requesting that all foodswhich received a favourable opinion from the Scientific Committee for Food be included in the
positive list.  The United States had also requested information on how additional foods could be
added to the positive list.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 14
15. European Communities - Notification G/ SPS/N/EEC/62 of emergency measures on
citrus pulp
Raised by: Brazil
Supported by:
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 49-50), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25,
para. 34)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/62
Solution (if reported): Brazil reported in October 2001 that the emergency measures had been
lifted.
35. In September 1998, Brazil expressed concerns regarding EC emergency notification
G/SPS/N/EEC/62, which mentioned very high levels of dioxin found in citrus pulp pellets from
Brazil.  Brazil pointed out that this accident had already been fully dealt with.  Brazilian authorities
were maintaining bilateral talks with the Eur opean Communities on the subject.  The European
Communities explained that this accident had involved 90 000 tonnes of contaminated citrus pulp
pellets destined for animal feed.  After scientific discussions, including Brazil's private sector, the EC
authorities had decided that the lack of information on the origin of the contamination, the amount of
stocks involved and the lack of a solution justified the emergency measure.  The European
Communities hoped that ongoing contacts with the Brazilian authorities would result in a solutionbefore the end of the year.
36. In October 2001,  Brazil reported that follow ing two technical visits by EC officials to
evaluate Brazilian control systems, the emergency m easures on dioxin in citrus pulp had been lifted.
16. European Communities - Measure on establishm ents operating in th e animal feed sector
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Argentina
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 50-56), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras.
35-36), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/58, G/SPS/GEN/88, G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported):
37. In June 1998, the United States raised its concerns with regard to an EC measure which set
conditions and arrangements for approving and registering establishments and intermediariesoperating in the animal feed sector.  The United States sought clarification regarding criteria used,
justification and coverage of the measure and the procedures  involved, and asked for an update on its
implementation status.
38. The European Communities replied that it was pu tting in place the legislative framework for
the establishment of a single market in regard to animal, plant and consumer health.  It wasestablishing harmonized standards so that products could circulate freely within the Community.  The
European Communities provided an explanation of the criteria used and risks addressed by the
framework, and clarified that it applied only to feedingstuffs for farm animals, not to pet food.  The
European Communities clarified that by the end of 1998, EC member States must provide the
Commission with a list of establishments considered eligible, which could be modified later on.Establishments would be inspected by the EC Commission.  The European Communities considered
its registration requirements to be flexible and not very onerous.  Argentina requested a written copy
of the EC statement.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 15
39. In September 1998, the United States reported it was encouraged by the EC willingness to
consult on this draft directive with a view to safeguarding public and animal health while minimizing
trade disruptions.  The European Communities noted that the new regime was similar to the previous
one, but was more flexible in that on-the-spot inspection in third countries was optional.  The
European Communities assured the United States that prompt answers would be provided to all
questions raised.
40. In July 2001, the United States reported that it did not require or support registration of
animal feed establishments and considered th e issue to still be unresolved (G/SPS/GEN/265).
17. European Communities - Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in
foodstuffs
Raised by: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, The Gambia, India, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Philippines, Senegal, Thailand
Supported by: Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines
(ASEAN), South Africa, Turkey, United States, Uruguay
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 24-31), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 15-
19), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 11-14), November 1998
(G/SPS/R/13, para. 26), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 64-66), March
2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 29-30 and 86-87), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras.
39-43), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 27-31)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/51, G/SPS/GEN/50, G/SPS/GEN/52, G/SPS/GEN/54,
G/SPS/GEN/55, G/SPS/GEN/56, G/SPS/GEN/57, G/SPS/GEN/58,G/SPS/GEN/61, G/SPS/GEN/62, G/SPS/GEN/63, G/SPS/GEN/93
Solution (if reported): Maximum levels for some products and sampling procedures revised.
41. In March 1998, a number of countries argued that the EC proposal to set new maximum
levels for aflatoxins would impose severe restrictions on trade while not resulting in a significant
reduction in health risk to consumers.  The proposal did not seem to be based on a proper risk
assessment.  Furthermore, the proposed sampling procedure was unduly costly, burdensome and
unjust.  Although an international standard on the subject did not yet exist, the Codex Committee on
Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) was cons idering the matter.  The complaining Members
felt that the timing was unfortunate, and urged the European Communities to review the proposedmeasure.
42. The European Communities noted that there had been no consensus in the CCFAC on the
issue; although many countries supported the Codex norm, the European Communities did not.  The
proposed measure reflected the EC level of protection.  With regard to the sampling procedure, since
contamination appeared in a small percentage of kernels, one simple sample was not sufficient tominimize risk to consumers.  The proposed methods  were already used by some EC member States.
The European Communities planned to evaluate the comments received until May 1998 and formalize
the proposal in June 1998.  The measure would enter into effect relatively shortly afterwards.
43. In June 1998, the European Communities reported that it had forwarded a revised proposal to
its member States.  The EC Standing Committ ee on Foodstuffs would consider the proposed
modifications on 17-18 June 1998.  Apart from revising some of the maximum levels, the European
Communities was considering transitional arrangements, and the new measures would not enter into
force before 1 January 1999.
44. In September 1998, Bolivia informed the Committee that the proposed EC measure would
have severe effects on Bolivian exports of Brazil nuts.  Bolivia requested to see the EC riskG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 16
assessment, and indicated it was prepared to enter into bilateral discussions with the European
Communities in order to find a mutually agreeable solution.  The United States encouraged the
European Communities to take into account the recommendations contained in the FAO/WHO risk
assessments establishing maximum levels for aflatoxin in consumer-ready products.  The ASEAN
countries expressed concern with maximum levels in milk, which would affect developing countries'
feed exports.
45. The European Communities noted that the deadli ne for comments had been extended to allow
for further comments from Members.  The European Communities had also revised its proposal, and
was prepared to raise the proposed maximum levels in nuts.  With regard to milk, the proposed EC
levels were in line with the standards being discussed in Codex.
46. In November 1998, the Chairman informed the Committee about bilateral consultations
between Bolivia and the European Communities which he had been requested to facilitate.  The
Chairman reported that the discussions had been very fruitful, and had helped Bolivia to betterunderstand the rationale behind the EC measures, as well as the EC procedures followed.  They had
also helped the EC understanding of the potential effect of some of its measures on the Bolivian
industry.  Technical consultations were continuing.
47. In March 1999, Bolivia reported that it had presented a plan to improve its Brazil nuts, and
consultations with the European Communities were on going.  Bolivia considered that this was a good
case for the application of special and differential treatment.  Peru indicated that several countries had
brought their problems with the new EC regulation on aflatoxins to the attention of the European
Communities through their missions in Brussels, without having obtained a satisfactory response.  In
particular, the European Communities had not presented a risk assessment.  The European
Communities assured Bolivia that their common examination of the problem would continue througha rapid procedure.  In response to other Members, the European Communities indicated that there had
been ample time for comments, and that the propo sal had been revised in response to comments
received.  On cereals, the European Communities wa s prepared to continue accepting comments until
1 July 1999 and to modify the measure if there was scientific justification.
48. In March 2001, Argentina raised concerns over EC maximum levels of contaminants in food
products and sampling methods for aflatoxins in peanuts, other nuts, dried fruits and cereals.
Argentina was preparing a technical submission for the European Communities to be circulated before
the next SPS Committee meeting. The European Communities agreed to carefully consider the
technical document.  Regarding cereals, the European Communities reminded Members that the
relevant legislation had been adopted in 2000 and would come into effect as of 1 July 2001.
49. Bolivia recalled the information it had provided regarding EC aflatoxin levels in Brazil nuts
(G/SPS/GEN/93).  The European Communities had not provided a risk analysis for this measure.
Bolivia outlined the socio-economic and ecological implications of the measure for the area of
production, as well as the effects on the economy.  The European Communities indicated that the
science had been explained in detail in the Committee.  An EC expert had visited Bolivia in May 2000
to evaluate the situation.  The Commission believed that the problems in Bolivia stemmed from
needed improvements in the production chain and the equipment used.  A project to address theseissues had been included in the EU Aid Programme.
50. In July 2001, Bolivia expressed concern about the long time it was taking to resolve the issue.
Argentina and Chile inquired about the technical assistance and special and differential treatment
aspects of the issue.  The European Communities noted that Bolivia was on a high priority list for EC
cooperation activities.  The expert mission in May 2000 had concluded that Bolivian products hadbeen meeting EC aflatoxin levels, and at least three private laboratories were equipped to carry out
accurate tests.  The European Communities remained willing to discuss technical difficulties and toG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 17
agree on practical solutions. The European Communities was promoting a project to improve
production and storage processes and the livelihood of nut collectors, to be executed in 2002; it had
proposed a certification procedure and hoped that Bolivia recognized the efforts being made to
improve Brazil nut production in the region concerned.  Bolivia confirmed that bilateral meetings had
taken place, including a discussion on possible technical cooperation programmes.  However, so far
no practical measures had been taken to reduce the negative effect on trade.
51. In October 2001, Bolivia reported that the European Communities still had not presented a
risk analysis to justify its maximum levels for af latoxins in Brazil nuts, nor applied special and
differential treatment or justified why higher levels were permitted in similar products.  The measure
was having a severe effect on the Bolivian economy.  Promises of technical assistance were not
beneficial, and Bolivia wished to see a solution based on acceptance by the European Communities of
a certificate.  The European Communities indicated that prolonged bilateral consultations had taken
place prior to the entry into force of the measure, and that expected trade concerns had notmaterialized. The risk assessment had been discussed on numerous occasions in the SPS Committee
and in JECFA.  EC technical assistance had the goal of ensuring compliance with EC standards.  A
national certification and accreditation mechanism was being implemented which would allow the
three Bolivian laboratories to issue internationally  recognized certificates.  However, no follow-up
information had been received from Bolivia on this possible solution.
18. European Communities – Trade restrictions in response to cholera
Raised by: Tanzania
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 56-57), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 96-
99)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/4
Solution (if reported): Measures revised.
52. In March 1998, the European Communities informed the Committee that it had taken
safeguard measures with respect to imports of fruit, vegetables and fish products in light of a cholera
outbreak in Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Mozambique.  The inspection procedures in these countries
had shown deficiencies, but the European Communities planned to consult with them to find
arrangements by which they could put in force pr oper hygiene requirements.  EC member States were
trying to develop a joint cholera policy based on risk assessment.  The WHO observer did not
consider the import ban necessary, especially on fish products which were not consumed in raw form
in Europe.  He drew attention to the WHO Guidance on Foundation of National Policy and Control of
Cholera, and particularly the conclusion in Chapter IX that:  "Although there is a theoretical risk of
Cholera transmission associated with some food commodities moving in international trade, this has
rarely proved significant and authorities should seek means of dealing with it other than by applying
an embargo on importation".
53. In June 1998, Tanzania reported that the European Communities continued to prohibit the
importation of fresh, frozen and processed fishery products from the four African countries, although
tests had not found the bacteria concerned.  Tanzania stressed that the EC ban was having severeeconomic effects on the Tanzanian economy, and that according to the SPS Agreement, Members
should help developing countries comply with their SPS measures.  The European Communities
responded that it was now satisfied the necessary guarantees were in place, and that a new measure
restoring trade with the four African countries would probably enter into force on 1 July 1998.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 18
19. Iceland's notification on meat and meat products
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 27)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ISL/1
Solution (if reported):
54. Argentina expressed interest in the notification of this measure permitting meat imports
without heat treatment into Iceland since it appeared to open the market to higher quality beef,although this was not entirely clear from the not ification.  Iceland confirmed that meat could be
imported without heat treatment, provided all necessary certificates and documents were submitted.
20. Korea – Import ban on frozen poultry
Raised by: Thailand
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 45), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.
67-68), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 21-23), September 1998
(G/SPS/R/12, paras. 15-16)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/44
Solution (if reported): Thailand's comments taken into account – measure amended.
55. In October 1997, Thailand indicated that Korea had banned Thai frozen poultry because of
listeria, although Korean experts had been satisfi ed after visiting facilities of the Thai poultry
industry.  This ban had not been notified in advance.  Thailand was determined to resolve this matter
with Korea. Korea asked for detailed information in writing.
56. In March 1998, Thailand indicated that it had submitted the requested information.  It sought
clarification whether the measure was based on an international standard or on a risk assessment,
particularly in light of information made available by the WHO working group on food-bornelisteriosis, which indicated that listeriosis had a very low incidence in Asia.  Korea responded that its
measure was not a ban, but that consignments had been rejected.
57. In June 1998, Thailand noted that the proposed amendment to the Korean food code had been
enacted retroactively to cover the disputed testin g requirements and asked Korea not to enforce the
testing requirements during the process of amendment of the food code.  Korea reported that bilateralconsultations had been held.  The food code was being reviewed to improve food safety and to
harmonize Korean regulations with international st andards.  All comments received were currently
being reviewed, although some delays had occurred.  Korea promised to inform Thailand of the final
outcome.
58. In September 1998, Thailand asked for confirmation that the Korean Food Code had been
amended so that zero tolerance criteria for listeria would not apply to imported frozen chicken after 16
June 1998.  Korea clarified that meat for further processing and cooking was excluded from the
requirement and not subject to inspection under the zero tolerance criteria for listeria.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 19
21. Korea – Shelf-life requirements
Raised by: Australia, Canada, United States
Supported by: Argentina, European Communities
Dates raised: June 1995 (G/SPS/R/2, paras. 39-40), November 1995 (G/SPS/R/3, paras. 7-
8), May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, paras. 42-44), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.
20-21), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 8-9), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1,
paras. 6-7), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/9, G/SPS/W/27, G/SPS/W/41, G/SPS/W/43,
G/SPS/GEN/40, G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported): The United States and Korea held formal consultations under dispute
settlement (W/DS5), and notified a mutually agreed solution in July 1995.
In July 2001, the United States indicated that the problem was resolved.
Canada initiated formal dispute settlement (W/DS20), and a mutuallysatisfactory solution was notified in April 1996.
59. In June 1995, the United States informed the Committee of official consultations under
Dispute settlement procedures with Korea regarding its government-mandated shelf-life requirements.
Canada had joined these consultations.  Korea indicated that although consultations had been
productive, there was a high degree of ambiguity in the implementation of the Agreement.  Theparties had noted the lack of international standards in the area, and countries maintained very diverse
practices.  A mutually agreed solution was notified in July 1995.  In November 1995, the United
States expressed serious concern that Korea was not implementing the agreed settlement.
60. Also in November 1995, Canada indicated that it had initiated formal consultations with
Korea related to shelf-life determination for bottled water and the prohibition of the use of ozonation.Korea confirmed that bottled water was excluded from the settlement reached with the United States,
but was willing to enter into consultations with Canada.  A mutually satisfactory solution was notified
in April 1996.
61. In May 1996 Canada noted that although a formal understanding had been reached with
regard to some concerns regarding shelf life, proble ms with the shelf life of bottled water continued.
Korea had not offered any time-table for moving to a manufacturer-determined shelf life on bottled
water.  Korea took note of this concern.  In July 1997, Canada reported that the matter had beenpursued bilaterally, but no resolution had been found.
62. In May 1996, Australia expressed serious concern with regard to Korea's shelf-life regulations
on ultra heat treated milk in consumer packs (UHT milk), which remained government mandated at a
period substantially shorter than that applied in most countries.  Australia was unaware of any
scientific justification for this limited shelf-life period, and requested Korea to permit a manufacturer-determined shelf life by 1 July 1996.  Korea took note of these concerns.
63. In March 1997, Australia reported that Korea had yet to implement a manufacturer-
determined shelf life for UHT milk.  Australia had provided a scientific submission to Korea in
November 1996, which had not been accepted.  Subsequently, Australia had provided another
submission upon request.  Korea indicated that it was reviewing the information provided by Australiaand noted that its new system for shelf-life determination set a time-frame for the implementation of a
manufacturer-determined shelf- life period for UHT milk.
64. In July 1997, Australia noted that Korea had not provided any justification for its non-
acceptance of manufacturer-determined shelf life, and requested an explanation in accordance with
Article 5.8.  Korea indicated that manufacturer-determined shelf life would be applied to UHT milkG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 20
before the end of 1998.  In October 1997, Australia indicated that it had not received a satisfactory
answer from Korea.  Korea replied that it was reviewing the possibility of extending the current
mandatory shelf-life period for UHT milk even befo re manufacturer-determined shelf life applied at
the end of 1998.
65. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it considered the trade concern to be resolved
(G/SPS/GEN/265).
22. Malaysia and Singapore - Notifications related to dioxin
Raised by: Switzerland
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 16)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MYS/6, G/SPS/N/SGP/7
Solution (if reported): Problems with Malaysia resolved, reported to be close to solution with
Singapore in July 1999.
66. Switzerland expressed concern that it had been affected by restrictions on imports of
European goods in response to the dioxin crisis in Belgium.  Some Members had not targeted their
measures only to affected areas.  Switzerland reported that a solution had been found with Malaysia,
and that the last few problems with Singapore would be resolved soon.
23. Panama - Restrictions on milk powder imports
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 15-16), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para.
135)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/220
Solution (if reported):
67. In November 2000, the European Communities indicated that since April 2000 the
Panamanian authorities had delayed issuing the necessary import permits and certificates for the
import of milk powder for human consumption from Denmark, resulting in a de facto ban on these
products.  No explanation had been provided in response to EC requests, and no notification
submitted to the WTO.  The European Communities requested a response by Panama to the questions
contained in G/SPS/GEN/220.  The representative of Panama agreed to submit the questions to hiscapital, and indicated the willingness of Panama to consult with the European Communities on this
matter.
68. In July 2001, Panama informed the Committee that it had provided responses to the EC
questions regarding powdered milk from Denmark.  In these responses, Panama reiterated that it
applied the same sanitary measures to domestic and imported products.  The European Communitiesindicated that the Commission would study the answers and report back to Panama.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 21
24. Poland - Requirements for imports of milk and milk products
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 70-71)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/POL/14
Solution (if reported):
69. The European Communities indicated that the Poli sh sanitary requirements for milk and milk
products resulted in unjustified trade distortions since they required the application of heat treatmentto products which were produced with raw milk.  The European Communities felt that there were
equivalent procedures to ensure that Poland's level of protection was met, and invited Poland to
engage in bilateral discussions on this measure.  Poland indicated that the EC request would be
considered.
25. Spain – Restriction on levels of copper and cadmium in imported squid
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Argentina
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, paras. 16-17), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 56),
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported): In July 2001, the United States indicated that it was not experiencing any
problems, and was continuing to monitor the situation.
70. In October 1996, the United States noted that the Spanish regulation on levels of copper and
other minerals in imported squid was discriminatory since domestic and EC products were
specifically exempted.  The European Communities replied that the scientific justification for
imposing such a measure came from a WHO recommendation on maximum weekly intakes of metal.
Harmonization of the permitted levels of various metals across the European Communities wascurrently being discussed in Brussels.  Argentina observed that the problem was not one of
harmonization, but of national treatment.
71. In March 1997, the United States recalled the discriminatory nature of the measure.  The
European Communities explained that although the norm only referred to third countries, in practice it
was recognized by EC member States as well.  In addition, the majority of squid imported into Spaincame from outside the European Communities.  Since Spain had a particularly high consumption of
the products in question, this had to be taken into account in addition to WHO recommendations.
72. In July 2001, the United States reported that it was not experiencing any problems in the area
and was continuing to monitor the situation (G/SPS/GEN/265).G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 22
26. Switzerland -  Notifications regarding import requirements on meat and eggs
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chil e, Hungary, India, Israel, New Zealand
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 39-41), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13,
paras. 29-30), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHE/14 and Corr.1, G/SPS/N/CHE/15, G/SPS/N/CHE/16,
G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported):
73. In September 1998, the United States expressed concern that Swiss regulations on meat from
animals treated with hormones, antibiotics and similar products imported under the Swiss tariff rate
quota (TRQ) were not based on science or risk assessment.  The fact that different requirements were
applied to meat imported outside the tariff rate quota called into question the validity of the alleged
public health objective behind the regulation.  The United States indicated it was preparing formalcomments and encouraged other Members to carefully consider the implications of the notified
measure.  Canada noted that the purpose of the measure was consumer information, yet the measure
did not make it clear if labelling was carried through to the retail level.  Switzerland noted that thirty
days were left of the comment period, and that all comments made would be taken into account when
drafting the final proposal.
74. In November 1998, the United States reiterated its concerns regarding restrictions on meat
imports under the Swiss TRQ, and added that the measure notified as G/SPS/N/CHE/15 would
prohibit imports of eggs and egg products from birds raised in battery cages under the TRQ.  Such
imports would be permitted outside the TRQ, subject to prohibitively high duties, strict labelling and
additional certification requirements.  The proposed regulations did not indicate what public healthobjective was involved.  The United States was concerned that the measures did not appear to be
based on a risk assessment.  Discrimination betw een products imported under the TRQ and outside
the TRQ was unjustified.  Switzerland explained that the measures related to the implementation of
the new Swiss Federal Law on Agriculture of 29 April 1998.  Swiss authorities were still discussing
the implementation of the Law, and questions and comments would be taken into account.
75. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it considered the issue unresolved
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  Switzerland had notified amende d measures under the TBT Agreement, on which
the United States had formally commented.
27. United States - Notification G/SPS/N/ USA/133 on refrigeration and labelling
requirements for shell eggs
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 37-38)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/133
Solution (if reported):
76. The European Communities queried whether the US measure was based on a risk assessment,
and if this risk assessment was available.  The European Communities sought written clarificationfrom the United States regarding the non-application of the measure to units with 3000 hens or less,
and asked the United States to explain the discrimination between foreign and domestic eggs.  The
European Communities also enquired whether the United States would accept equivalent measures.
The United States responded that the risk assessment was available on the internet, but that a copy
would be provided to the European Communities.  The United States welcomed the EC request forG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 23
consideration of equivalence, and indicated that answers to the more technical questions would be
provided in due course.
II. ANIMAL HEALTH AND ZOONOSES
A. ISSUES RELATED TO TSE S
28. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States - Import restrictions
affecting BSE-free countries
Raised by: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania,
Slovak Republic, Slovenia
Supported by: European Communities, United States
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  18-25), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 48)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/247, G/SPS/N/ARG/59, G/SPS/N/AUS/125,
G/SPS/N/CAN/94, G/SPS/N/KOR/83, G/SPS/N/NZL/77,
G/SPS/N/USA/379
Solution (if reported):
77. On behalf of a group of countries (see table above), Romania drew attention to a number of
emergency notifications banning imports of certain animal products from countries that were BSE-
free.  These measures violated the SPS Agreement since they were not based on a proper risk
assessment.  The affected countries were willin g to provide the necessary documentation of their
BSE-free status.  The European Communities added that testing or suspension of imports of milk,
dairy products, collagen and gelatine for BSE was not in conformity with OIE guidelines, and
requested Members to adapt their requirements to  the international standard.  The United States
affirmed that BSE-related measures must be based on science and international standards.  The United
States, although BSE-free, had also been affected by import restrictions, some of them imposed by
countries sponsoring the statement presented by Romania.  The United States had provided evidence
on its freedom from BSE, its surveillance system and control measures to interested trade partners,
and required similar data from countries that may pose a BSE risk.  The United States looked forward
to receiving the necessary information to assess the risks involved.
78. New Zealand and Australia were concerned over the increase in known incidence of the
disease in Europe as a result of intensified testing, and had issued emergency food standards to protect
public health.  They were developing permanent measures, which would be notified to allow forcomments from interested Members.  Canada had no t recognized any of the countries of the joint
declaration as BSE-free, and woul d evaluate individual countries based on a risk assessment as soon
as the necessary information was received.  Korea indicated that a temporary measure had been
introduced because of the increased prevalence of BSE in Europe.  Korea would seek the additional
information necessary for a more objective assessment of the risks involved.  Argentina indicated thatits emergency measure was based on the scientific information available at the time, and stressed that
any new information received would be considered.  Bulgaria pointed out that according to Article 5.7
Members were obliged to request additional information when temporary measures were
implemented.  Brazil reaffirmed Members' right to go beyond international guidelines based on a risk
assessment, but stressed that this should only take place once the necessary information had beenprovided.
79. In July 2001, Bulgaria reiterated its concern regarding import restrictions affecting BSE-free
countries.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 24
29. Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine semen, milk and milk products
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by: Switzerland, South Africa
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras.  17-18), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras 23-
24), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 26-28), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22,
paras. 44-46), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 18-19)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/37, G/SPS/N/ARG/38, G/SPS/N/ARG/47, Corr.1 and Rev.1,
G/SPS/GEN/114, G/SPS/GEN/131, G/SPS/GEN/135
Solution (if reported): Measure revised and notified (G/SPS/N/ARG/47/Rev.1).
80. In March 1999, the European Communities noted it had been unable to obtain the text of
Argentina's measure on bovine semen imports, and was submitting a series of questions.  Argentina
indicated that the measure had been notified (G/SPS/N/ARG/37).  It clarified that the request for the
full text of the measure had not been received from the Commission, but from several EC memberStates.  Argentina committed to sending the relevant document to the European Commission.
81. In July 1999, the European Communities again expressed concern regarding Argentina's
BSE-related restrictions on bovine semen, milk and milk products.  G/SPS/N/ARG/38 concerned a
draft measure which classified these products as low-risk products.  Subsequently notified import
requirements (G/SPS/N/ARG/47) established co untry freedom from BSE or low BSE risk as
preconditions for importing frozen bovine semen, although according to the OIE, bovine semen from
healthy animals could be traded without BSE-re lated restrictions.  The European Communities
indicated that it had received no answers to the questions raised in March 1999, and raised several
new questions.
82. Argentina replied that it had provided answer s to the EC questions both bilaterally and in
G/SPS/GEN/135.  Argentina had received several comments on the measure notified in
G/SPS/N/ARG/47, and had taken these comments into account.  Argentina was planning to issue a
revision of G/SPS/N/ARG/47, and was committed to continue exchanging information with the
European Communities to resolve all questions before the measure was adopted.
83. In November 2000, the European Communities stated that Argentina was applying import
restrictions on bovine semen that went well beyond international recommendations and were not
justified.  The European Communities would continue to pursue this issue bilaterally, and was hopefulof a resolution.  Argentina replied that it had notified, in advance, its regulation as G/SPS/N/ARG/47,
which was subsequently revised following comments by the European Communities and others
(G/SPS/N/ARG/47/Rev.1).  This regulation established criteria not only in relation to BSE concerns
but also to two other diseases.  Argentina had resolved the problems identified bilaterally by many EC
member States, in particular Germany and France.  Furthermore, an Argentine veterinary missionwould be visiting various EC member States early in December and was prepared to also address this
issue at that time.
84. In July 2001, the European Communities referred to the information on BSE circulated by
OIE and WHO, concluding that there was no evidence of BSE transmission via milk collected from
healthy animals (G/SPS/GEN/221, 222, and 230).  However, Argentina was still imposing import
restrictions on EC dairy products, in particular from the United Kingdom.  The European
Communities had replied to Argentina's extensive questionnaire, but Argentina had failed to provide a
risk assessment to justify its measures.  The European Communities urged Argentina either to provide
a scientific justification, or to lift the trade restrictions.  Otherwise the European Communities would
have to consider an eventual recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.  Argentina replied thatin January 2001, its animal health service had adopted a resolution which imposed restrictions onG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 25
dairy products.  A new, less restrictive sanitary certificate would be notified soon.  Regarding human
health, dairy products had been reclassified from  medium to low risk, and the relevant decree
eliminated the restrictions.  This reclassification was not yet complete, and one category of milk
remained under restriction.  The United Kingdom was considered a high-risk country, but the
situation was under analysis.
85. In October 2001, the European Communities indicated that despite statements from the
Argentine authorities that dairy products would be reclassified, Argentina continued to place
restrictions on baby food and on Baileys from Ireland; Belgian chocolate; bovine semen and dairy
products from the Netherlands; milk powder and chees e from Germany; Swedish cacao oil butter; and
dairy products from the United Kingdom and France.  Furthermore, the European Communities
disagreed with the classification of dairy products as  low-risk, as opposed to no-risk, and criticized the
lack of transparency of the Argentine measure.  The European Communities was considering eventual
recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.  Argentina explained that it did not maintain anyrestriction on EC dairy products; they just had to be certified as coming from establishments where no
case, or suspected case, of BSE had been recorded.  A counter proposal from EC member States that
milk come from establishments where there had been no case of BSE was currently being studied to
determine equivalence.  Regarding transparency, all standards could be consulted on the web page of
the Official Bulletin.  As Argentina continued ef forts to resolve this question, it did not consider
recourse to Article 12.2 consultations necessary.
30. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France,
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, United
States and others – Measures related to BSE
Raised by: Switzerland
Supported by:
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5 and Corr.1, paras. 6-9), October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6,
para. 53), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 56), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras.
10-19), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 15-17), March 1998
(G/SPS/R/10, para. 9), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, para. 29), September 1998
(G/SPS/R/12, paras. 26-30), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 17-18),
March 1998 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 14), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 8)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/56, G/SPS/N/AUS/57, G/SPS/N/CAN/18, G/SPS/N/CHL/1,
G/SPS/N/CHL/6, G/SPS/N/CHL/31, G/SPS/N/CZE/14 and Add.1,
G/SPS/N/SGP/1, G/SPS/W/68, G/SPS/W/79, G/SPS/GN/5, G/SPS/GEN/71
Solution (if reported): Slovak transit ban removed, mutually satisfactory solution found with regard
to Slovak importation of Swiss milk and milk products; Chilean import
measure modified; some other measures withdrawn/revised.
86. In May 1996, Switzerland presented information on its BSE situation, and noted that a
number of countries had restricted imports of dairy products, although both the OIE and the WHO
concluded that dairy products posed no risk in respect of BSE.  In October 1996, Switzerland
provided an update of its sanitary prescriptions, culling and veterinary measures to be adopted at theborder.   In March 1997, Switzerland indicated that although it was a country of low incidence of
BSE, it had been subject to a number of BSE-related trade restrictions, some of which could not be
justified under WTO rules.  The Chairman agreed to hold informal consultations with interested
Members on 21 March 1997.
87. In July 1997, Switzerland reported that although there had been some positive developments,
problems remained.  Switzerland addressed some questions to the Members concerned, stressing its
interest to find rapid solutions through bilateral discussions.  Argentina informed the Committee thatG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 26
it had replied to Swiss questions and would provide more information; Switzerland expressed
satisfaction with this progress.  Brazil noted that its import prohibition of bovine semen was based on
the classification of bovine semen as a medium risk product, and on Brazil's BSE-free status.  At the
subsequent meeting of the relevant MERCOSUR wo rking group in July 1997, Brazil would attempt to
reclassify bovine semen as low risk.
88. Canada noted that there had been no changes to its import conditions for the importation of
live cattle, bovine embryos, bovine semen, bovine meat or meat products from Switzerland, although
a draft document on BSE policies was being discussed.  Canada was receiving comments on its draft
measure, which would be in accordance with the OIE Code.  Canada was concerned with the lack of
quantitative or qualitative parameters for the differentiation between countries with high and low
incidence of BSE, and re-extended an invitation for bilateral discussions.
89. The United States stressed that it did not prohibit the importation of meat.  BSE-related
measures were subject to continued review based on scientific evidence, which, for example, had ledto the opening of trade in bovine semen, although other matters remained unresolved.  The United
States remained open to scientific discussion in the area.  Switzerland noted that the United States
required certification for dried meat, and hoped that the reviewed US policies would be in line with
OIE recommendations.
90. Romania informed the Committee that it had held bilateral discussions with Switzerland.  Its
policies were in line with OIE recommendations, and would be notified shortly.  Switzerland
expressed satisfaction with the results of bilateral talks.  Poland noted that imports to Poland were
carried out on the grounds of individual import permissions, but that no application had been received
from Switzerland.  Switzerland requested bilateral clarifications.  Singapore indicated that countries
exporting beef were required to certify BSE-freedom for six years.  It believed this measure to beconsistent with the SPS Agreement, and planned to notify it shortly.
91. The Czech Republic was concerned about continued occurrence of BSE in Switzerland,
especially since the Czech Republic was BSE-free.  However, imports of bovine semen, brain and
embryos from Switzerland were not restricted.  The Czech Republic would prefer to continue
discussion at the level of veterinary experts.  The European Communities noted that measures weretaken on a national basis by EC member States, but were screened for conformity with EC law before
being notified to WTO.  In the case of BSE, this had taken more time than expected, and although
there was no common position within the European Co mmunities, changes to the policy were being
considered.  The European Communities indicated it was going beyond OIE recommendations, and
indicated that it would be useful to cont inue discussions with the relevant experts.
92. In October 1997, Switzerland indicated that its BSE-situation was improving, but that
numerous restrictions continued to affect Swiss exports of live cattle, genetic material, meat, and in
certain cases milk products.  Bilateral consultations were continuing.  Switzerland questioned why the
Australian quarantine requirements for the importation of bovine embryos and semen applied to
Switzerland only, and whether countries with actual BSE incidents were subject to similar
requirements.  Switzerland also wondered why the objective of the new requirements was to "develop
import requirements…based on international standards", whereas the notification indicated that nointernational standard existed.  Australia replied that it had developed generic conditions for
importation of ruminants and ruminant genetic ma terial from member States of the European
Communities, but had established bilateral conditions with other trading partners.  The conditions in
the notified draft requirements for Switzerland were in accordance with Australia's general import
policy relating to BSE promulgated in January 1995, and were equivalent to BSE requirements for allother countries.  International standards existed and Australia did not consider that the notified draft
measures deviated from such standards.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 27
93. Switzerland questioned why the Czech import restriction on imports of cattle over six months
applied to Switzerland only, and whether countries with actual BSE incidents were subject to similar
requirements.  The Czech Republic replied that an individual import permit was required for traders
interested in importing goods subject to veterinary control, including live animals.  The Czech
authorities considered the epizootic situation in the country of origin, frequency of newly found cases
of contagious diseases, efficiency of eradication programmes, etc.  The import approach was alwaysthe same and included discussion with the veterinary authorities of the country of origin.  The system
distinguished between countries with sporadic positive cases and those with continued occurrence of
cases, like Switzerland.  Although the measures in place in Switzerland corresponded to OIE
recommendations, they had not fully eliminated BSE-related risks, and had not prevented new
infections.  Unlike other countries, Switzerland sl aughtered and destroyed only BSE-affected animals,
not all animals kept and fed in the same place.  Such animals could be considered as a source of
disease.  Trade between the Czech Republic and the European Communities was based on ECmeasures which represented a higher rate of prevention than the OIE recommendations.  The Czech
Republic offered to continue bilateral discussions with Switzerland.
94. In March 1998, Switzerland reported that most BSE-related measures against its exports
remained in place although they deviated from OIE recommendations.  However, some Members had
eliminated or revised their measures, especially on genetic products.  With respect to the EuropeanCommunities, Switzerland hoped that recent developments would lead to a more predictable situation.
In June 1998, Switzerland and the Slovak Republic reported on progress achieved during
consultations and in September 1998, Switzerland reported that the transit ban had been removed,
although discussions on market access for dairy products continued.
95. In September 1998, Switzerland reiterated concerns with import prohibitions on Swiss bovine
semen, which seemed to contradict WTO provisions regarding non-discrimination, risk assessment,
notification and consultation.  Switzerland was still awaiting answers to its detailed questions to the
relevant Members, or re-admission of Swiss exports.  The European Communities reported on useful
bilateral contacts with Switzerland, and indicated that the European Communities was undertaking an
inventory of all national BSE-related measures in order to notify them.  In addition, the EuropeanCommunities would propose that EC member States harmonize their conditions for import from
Switzerland.  Chile indicated that, based on OIE recommendations on BSE, it had authorized bovine
semen imports from France and was processing a request from the United Kingdom.  No official
request to export bovine semen had been received from Switzerland.
96. In November 1998, Switzerland and the Slovak Republic reported that they were close to a
short-term solution regarding the Slovak import ban on Swiss dairy.  In the longer term, a few
technical issues remained to be settled.  In March 1999, Switzerland informed the Committee that a
mutually satisfactory solution regarding Slovak importation of Swiss milk and milk products had been
found.  Chile reported that its measure affecting imports of bovine semen had been modified.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 28
31. Canada - Measures related to BSE
(a) Measures affecting imports of products containing Brazilian beef
Raised by: Brazil
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 2-5)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/245, G/SPS/W/108, G/SPS/N/CAN/39, G/SPS/N/CAN/94
Solution (if reported): Suspension lifted in February 2001.
97. Canada outlined its BSE policy, and informed Members of recent actions taken regarding the
application of this policy.  Imports from Brazil had recently been suspended because Brazil had not
provided the information requested by Canada in order to carry out a risk assessment.  Canada was
especially concerned about the traceability of cattle imported from BSE-infected countries.  Canada
had lifted its suspension after receipt and analysis of documentation from Brazil and a visit to Brazil
by scientists from Canada, the United States and Mexico.  Canada reported that Brazilian authoritieshad agreed to certification requirements.  Brazil regretted that Canada had not handled this matter in a
more transparent manner, with prior notification and consultation.  Brazil recalled its BSE-free status
according to OIE classification, and its ban on feeding of ruminant material to cattle.  Brazil had
suffered many adverse effects from Canada's hasty embargo.  This had raised awareness of certain
shortcomings of the multilateral system in cases like this one.  Brazil announced its intention topresent proposals to the SPS Committee and the General Council to address these problems.
(b) Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 24-25)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CAN/18
Solution (if reported):
98. The European Communities argued that the Canadian policy went beyond what could be
scientifically justified, and was furthermore not in conformity with the OIE Code.  The European
Communities noted that (i) no distinction was made between high and low incidence countries;  (ii)
there were provisions for whole-herd slaughter and slaughter of mother as well as of progeny despite
BSE not being considered as a herd disease and unfinalized investigations on maternal transmission;and, (iii) the Canadian policy required BSE to have been notifiable for six years under an active
surveillance programme and that imports would be allowed only after six years of absence of the
disease.  Also, the proposed policy implied that  Canada would not accept meat from any country
which had imported meat and bone meal from a country which had a case of BSE.  Under these
conditions only one EC member State would qualify to  export meat to Canada.  Canada explained that
while the BSE policy was already in force, some changes were proposed.  It was on these draft
changes that comments were being sought.  The time for comments would be extended.
32. European Communities – Measures related to BSE
99. In May and October 1996, the European Communities informed the SPS Committee about the
development of BSE, and the measures taken
3.  This information is contained in G/SPS/W/67 and
G/SPS/GN/8.
                                                     
3 G/SPS/R/5 and Corr.1, paras. 6-9 and G/SPS/R/6, para. 53; see also G/SPS/N/EEC/30.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 29
100. In June 2000, the European Communities reminded the Committee that since the inception of
the 1996 BSE crisis, several countries had banned imports of a range of bovine products, including
milk, milk products and bovine semen.  Although no Member was maintaining restrictions on milk
and milk products due to BSE, several Members were still applying import restrictions on bovine
semen.  The European Communities was very concerned about the legitimacy of the restrictions and
reserved the right to take any necessary action with regards to unjustified trade barriers.  The nature of
the EC concerns were detailed in G/SPS/GEN/187.
101. In March and July 2001, the European Communities again provided updates of the BSE
situation, including on new BSE-TSE legislative measures.  The European Communities also raised
concerns with many countries' restrictions on EC e xports, especially those on products such as pig and
poultry meat, milk and dairy products.  Measures should be transparent and communicated through
agreed procedures.  The European Communities inte nded to intensify its efforts through bilateral
discussions, and to begin raising specific issues in the Committee.  New Zealand and Australiaprovided updates of their relevant regulations.
4
(a) EC transitional TSE measures
Raised by: Canada
Supported by: United States
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 5-8)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
102. Canada expressed concern about loss of access to the EC markets for pet food, live bovine
animals, embryos, ova and tallow in the wake of  the adoption of transitional TSE measures by the
European Communities.  Canada stated that the EC regulations classified countries according to four
levels of risk, but applied only two levels of risk management.  According to the OIE criteria, Canada
was BSE-free, yet Canadian exports faced identical trade restrictions to EC member States in which
BSE was prevalent.  These problems would be compounded by EC animal waste regulations due next
year which threatened to prohibit the few remaining animal products that Canada could still export to
the European Communities.  Canada requested to be removed from the scope of application of these
measures.  The United States agreed that the European Communities was applying stringent measures
to countries that were either not affected by BSE, or which had significantly different risk factors.This approach lacked scientific justification and ran counter to international standards.  The European
Communities explained that the transitional measures laid down import conditions for products of
bovine, ovine and caprine origin, and would be extended to cover certification of other products of
animal origin.  Pet food was included to protect consumers' health. An exemption was made for
countries classified in category one (presence of BSE unlikely), but neither Canada nor the UnitedStates were in this category.
                                                     
4 G/SPS/R/21, paras. 6-7 and G/SPS/R/22, paras. 4-5 and 47-50.  See also G/SPS/N/NZL/77 and
addendum.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 30
(b) EC geographical BSE risk assessment
Raised by: Canada
Supported by: United States
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 22-26)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
103. Canada requested information on the EC ge ographical BSE risk assessment (GBR) process,
the consistency of its application and how assessments could be reviewed when risks changed.Canada noted that the OIE was developing a system to verify countries' own assessments of their BSE
status, and wondered how it would relate to the EC system.  The United States was concerned that the
European Communities was applying similarly stringent measures to countries with significantly
different risk factors, a practice which lacked scientific justification and ran counter to existing
international standards.  It was not entirely transparent how country classifications would bedetermined nor what requirements would be applied in the meantime.  The United States had
submitted detailed comments identifying a number of problems with the methodology and with the
information related to the United States.  The United States urged countries to take the OIE standard
into account when developing their BSE measures.  The OIE representative clarified that the OIE
would deal only with recognition of BSE freedom, not  with the other four categories contained in the
International Animal Health Code (G/SPS /GEN/266).  The Commission on FMD and other
Epizootics had received the mandate to develop guidelines to help member countries carry out their
risk assessment, taking into account the experience from GBR assessments.
104. The European Communities explained that GBRs were based on information provided by
trading partners in a 1998 questionnaire.  The GBR methodology had been established by the ECScientific Steering Committee.  The new EC BSE- TSE measure was in conformity with the OIE
Code, but the GBR pre-dated the current OIE Code.  Any new scientific evidence could be submitted
to the Commission and a re-evaluation of a GBR would be considered once additional stability
measures had been implemented, allowing three to five years to take into account the incubation
period of BSE.  The EC representative explained the stability factors that were taken into
consideration; these were considered on a case-by-case basis.  The European Communities considered
that the GBR reflected the international standard, and was willing to cooperate with Members andprovide information.  Knowledge about this disease should be shared to minimize trade effects where
possible.
(c) Restrictions on the use of fishmeal
Raised by: Chile, Peru
Supported by: Ecuador, United States, Iceland
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 17-21), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras.
12-17)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/256, G/SPS/GEN/264
Solution (if reported):
105. In July 2001, Peru expressed concern about the EC prohibition on the use of fishmeal in the
elaboration of ruminant feed, which had no scientific basis, was not based on a risk assessment, and
was more trade-restrictive than required.  The competent authorities in Peru had shown that fishmeal
and fish oil were safe to human and animal health, and had high nutritional value.  Since the
prohibition had a very serious impact on the Peruvian economy, Peru asked the European
Communities to lift this restriction as soon as possible.  Chile underlined that fishmeal was not at all
related to BSE.  At bilateral meetings, the European Communities had explained that the restrictionG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 31
was related to cross-contamination of fishmeal and other animal meals within the European
Communities.  Chile requested the European Commun ities to exclude fishmeal from the prohibition,
and to be more flexible with standards applied to processing plants in the meantime.  The European
Communities had classified Chile as having minimal BSE risk, and Chile had offered to provide
quality and traceability certificates.  Chile was surprised that there were no restrictions on vegetable
meals, which could also be mixed with meat and bone meal (MBM) in feed.  In addition, MBMcontinued to be used as pet food in the European Communities.  The United States urged Members to
reacquaint themselves with the relevant OIE guidelines and recommendations (G/SPS/GEN/230).
106. The OIE representative drew attention to the WHO/FAO/OIE conference held in June 2001
on BSE, public health, animal health and trade (G/SPS/GEN/260).  The experts at this meeting had
concluded that the basis of the EC ban on feeding rendered animal protein to farm animals was to
avoid risk of cross-contamination of the animal f eed system.  Discussions had highlighted the lack of
technical means to verify the absence of banned products in meals at very low levels.  The EuropeanCommunities confirmed that the ban on the use of fishmeal in ruminant feed was a safeguard measure
reflecting failures in the implementation of rules on animal feed.  Imports of fishmeal had not been
prohibited, but its use was subject to strict conditions.  The European Communities wished to
minimize trade effects and was ready to evaluate with Chile, Peru and other countries the
consequences, if any, on their exports.
107. In October 2001, Peru indicated that the European Communities recognized that there was no
scientific evidence demonstrating that BSE could be transmitted through fishmeal, but maintained its
restrictions to address an internal problem of cross-contamination and fraudulent practices.  Peru
requested that the European Communities lift the restrictions as soon as possible.  Chile noted that
applying the same restrictions on fishmeal as for MBM had no scientific basis and was not consistentwith OIE or WHO recommendations.  Chile was concerned over the length of time that the
provisional measure had been in place and the suggestion that a new diagnostic test of the presence of
animal proteins in feed would need to be developed before the measure could be rescinded.  Chile
would explore all options available under the SPS Agreement to have the restrictions lifted.  The
United States underlined the need for BSE control measures to reflect the different risk status ofparticular products and countries.  Iceland objected strongly to the EC measures which were
tantamount to an import ban on fishmeal for animal feed.
108. The European Communities clarified that the legislation was a provisional measure that
covered the internal use of fishmeal.  As all producers were requested to fulfil the same conditions,
the measure was not discriminatory.  A derogation allowed the use of fishmeal in feeds for non-ruminant animals provided certain strict production and handling conditions were met.  The
development of a reliable, but less laborious detection test would be a decisive element when
reviewing the feed ban, and efforts were underway in the Communities in this regard.  The
representative of the European Communities questioned claims that the EC regulations had an adverse
impact on trade.
(d) Cosmetics and BSE
Raised by: Australia
Supported by: Brazil, United States, Chile
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  61-62), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 22-24)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/20, G/SPS/N/EEC/43
Solution (if reported):
109. Australia expressed concern regarding an EC measure specifying that cosmetics containing
certain bovine, ovine and caprine tissues etc. should not be placed on the market.  This directive didG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 32
not recognize the animal health status of supplying countries.  The European Communities stressed
that since BSE surveillance was still under development and since detection was difficult, there was
considerable uncertainty surrounding the global prevalence of BSE.  All comments received by the
deadline would be taken into account, and the regulation would enter into force on 1 July 1997.  In
July 1998, the United States stressed that the measure would reduce or eliminate US exports of tallow
derivatives, soaps and cosmetics.  The European Communities clarified that in light of WHOrecommendations, measures had to be taken to reduce the risk of transmission of TSEs to humans
through the food or feed chain, pharmaceuticals or cosmetics.  Regarding BSE-freedom, the European
Communities was not prepared to recognize any country as BSE-free, taking into account the
difficulties of certifying such a status.
(e) Rules on "specified risk materials" in products of animal origin
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic,
Mexico, New Zealand, Uruguay, Switzerland
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 10-14), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10,
paras. 13-19), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 34-38), July 2001
(G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/36, G/SPS/GEN/45, G/SPS/GEN/67, G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported):
110. In October 1997, the United States raised concerns with Decision 97/534 EC banning the use
of certain specified risk materials, which might cause international shortages of needed medical
products and have a major restrictive impact on trade in tallow and derivatives, gelatine,
pharmaceuticals and many food products.  This ban seemed to be more restrictive than necessary toachieve its public health objectives, especially as it applied to the United States and other regions
where BSE was not known to exist.  The European Communities indicated that since scientific studies
had shown that its previous measures might not be sufficient, it had raised its level of protection.
Members who considered themselves to present no risk with regard to TSEs could present an
application for examination by the EC Scientific Committee.  Argentina indicated that in its view,
measures which failed to distinguish between countries infected with BSE and countries not infected
were contrary to the OIE recommendations and the SPS Agreement.  He distributed copies of a BSE
risk analysis.
5
111. In March 1998, the United States reiterated th at the European Communities should recognize
the BSE-free status of the United States and other regions.  Several delegations welcomed the EC
decision to provide additional time to review all the scientific evidence and other important
implications of the proposed measure and provid ed comments.  The European Communities clarified
that entry into force of its measure had been postponed from 1 April to 1 July 1998, and that BSE-free
countries could apply for an additional derogation until 1 January 1999.
112. In June 1998, the European Communities reported that EC member States were still unable to
reach a common position on the issue, and that the EC Decision would therefore not enter into force
until 1 January 1999.  In the meantime, member States had introduced a number of measures.  The ECCommission was also submitting new legislation for approval, taking into account the OIE
classification of countries with respect to BSE.
                                                     
5 Argentine Scientific Advisory Committee on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (1st Meeting), April 7-8-9-10,
1997, Buenos Aires, Argentina, "Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación".G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 33
113. In July 2001, the United States indicated that the EC legislation on specified risk materials
had entered into force for third countries on 1 April 2001 (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States
encouraged the European Communities to ensure that its measures took account of the disease
situation in countries where BSE did not occur, such as the United States.
(f) Gelatin imports
Raised by: Brazil, United States
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Chile, Mexico, Thailand, United States
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev .1, paras. 8-9), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10,
para. 16), September 1998 (G/SPS/R /12, paras. 22-23), November 1998
(G/SPS/R/13, para. 19), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 9-11), November
1999 (G/SPS/R/17, paras. 6-7), March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, paras. 21-22),
March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 95-96), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 52-
53), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 34)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/133, G/SPS/N/EEC/74
Solution (if reported): In October 2001, Brazil reported that the European Communities had lifted
its restrictions in June 2001.  US concern ongoing.
114. In October 1997, Brazil indicated that its gelatin exports had been negatively affected by
French requirements for specific production methods, which in Brazil's view lacked scientificjustification.  Where BSE had been diagnosed, raw materials for gelatin were considered low risk
products.  In addition, there had never been a case of BSE in Brazil.  The European Communities
responded that the French decision had been taken in the expectation of EC provisions which would
introduce conditions related to microbiological a nd chemical criteria, and minimum requirements
related to BSE.  The OIE Code required certain prov isions which in the EC view Brazil did not fulfill,
and Brazil had not presented an application to the European Communities to request recognition of its
TSE-free status.
115. Brazil reiterated its concerns in March 1998, and indicated that an EC questionnaire on
animal feeding in Brazil would soon be officially provided to the EC authorities.  In September 1998,
Brazil reported that despite numerous bilateral talks, no progress had been made.  The European
Communities noted that the origin of the problem was that Brazil considered itself as BSE-free, while
in the EC view no country could be designated as BSE-free.  Both countries agreed that there had
been some misunderstandings and were willing to resolve them through further contacts.  In
November 1998, Brazil welcomed a new French decision which took into account some of the
Brazilian comments, and urged France to implement these new requirements as soon as possible.
116. In July 1999, Brazil acknowledged the EC notification on the matter, but remained concerned
as its gelatin exports were still interrupted.  The proposed EC legislation, which was not based on arisk assessment, would severely impact the ability of  non-European countries to supply gelatin to the
EC market.  Brazil asked that the European Communities accept other countries' measures as
equivalent.  The European Communities explained its new measure, and invited all Members to
comment in writing.  In November 1999, both Members reported that they had decided to pursue the
matter bilaterally.  In March 2000, Brazil and the European Communities made a jointcommunication announcing that constructive consultations had taken place, and that the European
Communities would evaluate the relevant documentation provided by Brazil.
117. In March 2001, the United States indicated that since May 2000, EC and US authorities had
been discussing the continuation of US gelatin shipments based on the equivalence of US and EC
safety systems.  Despite continuing efforts of US regulatory authorities and industry, the EuropeanCommunities had not agreed to accept equivalence based on export certificates issued by USG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 34
authorities.  As a result, there had been no exports of US food grade gelatin to the European
Communities since June 2000.  The United States appreciated EC efforts to review information, and
urged the Commission to accept the equivalence of US certificates.  The European Communities
stated that both sides had a clear idea of the problems involved, which were primarily of a judicial
nature.  The European Communities was proposing flexible solutions which both parties might find
acceptable.
118. In July 2001, the United States reported that despite ongoing efforts, US shipments of gelatin
had been discontinued since June 2000 because the European Communities had not agreed to accept
equivalence-based export certificates.  The United States had demonstrated that US gelatin food
safety systems met the EC appropriate level of protection.  The European Communities clarified that
US gelatin was not prohibited, but that negotiations were underway on a specific certificate for the
United States.  The equivalence of the US production system had been established on all but two
points, where compliance with additional requirements must be certified.  Since December 2000, theonly pending question was that FDA, as a matter of policy, did not certify compliance with foreign
rules, while the European Communities requir ed certification by a competent authority.
119. In October 2001, Brazil reported that intense bilateral consultations on Brazilian processing
methods and controls had resulted in the European Communities lifting its restrictions as of 13 June
2001.
33. France – Certification requirements for pet food
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Chile
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 7-8), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 20-21),
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/18, G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported):
120. In March 1997, the United States expressed concern with regard to French certification
requirements adopted under national legislation which blocked US exports of pet food and had not
been notified to WTO.  Bilateral exchanges with  France had produced no progress.  The European
Communities regretted that their internal procedure for notification of national measures had delayed
notification of the French measure in question.  The measure had been based on discussions andrecommendations at the EC Commission level, reco mmendations by the WHO, as well as parallel
scientific discussions in the United Kingdom and France.
121. In July 1997, the United States again raised concerns with the French measure for protection
from TSEs.  The measure did not account for the fact that the United States was BSE-free, and did not
seem to have a scientific basis.  Furthermore, the measure applied to species not affected by TSEs,such as poultry and fish.  Chile expressed concern regarding the effect the regulation might have on
trade in fishmeal.  The European Communities pointed out a few inaccuracies in the US document,
and noted that the provisions banning the use of frozen animals or animal cadavers were not
necessarily addressing health issues, but image and quality, and were therefore not strictly relevant
under the SPS Agreement.  Discussion of the matter continued within the European Communities.
122. In July 2001, the United States reported that its exports continued to be hampered by French
certification requirements, which differed from  those applied by other EC member States
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States questioned the scientific foundation for excluding animal meat
or bone meal from pet food produced in countries where BSE does not occur.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 35
34. Hungary - Restrictions related to BSE
(a) Restrictions on bovine products
Raised by: Canada
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 16-17)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/230
Solution (if reported):
123. Canada indicated that Hungary had suspended imports of all bovine products from Canada
due to fears over BSE, although Canada was BSE-free and BSE could not be transmitted by bovine
semen.  Canada was willing to continue working with  the Hungarian authorities to resolve this matter
as quickly as possible.  The United States drew attention to the OIE document (G/SPS/GEN/230)
which listed products that were safe from BSE and encouraged Members to review their measures
accordingly.  Hungary reported that since several Members had recently imposed import bans oncertain BSE-free countries, Hungarian consumers had begun to question the safety of animals and
products from these countries.  Hungarian authorities had made prion tests a mandatory condition for
veterinary import licenses for live cattle, fresh meats and non-heat-treated products of bovine origin.
Bovine semen was not subject to the import restrictions.
(b) Restrictions on pork products
Raised by: Canada
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 31-32)
Relevant document(s):
Solution (if reported):
124. Canada reported that as of January 2001, Hungarian importers of pork products from Canada
had not been able to obtain import certificates from Hungary's veterinary services.  A similardisruption had occurred the previous year, and had been resolved through bilateral discussion.
Canada asked Hungary to resume issuing import permits, or to provide a legitimate scientific
justification for the measure.  Hungary referred to fears over BSE transmission and cross-
contamination of foodstuffs, and was willing to enter into bilateral consultations on the matter.
Canada requested clarification on the relevance of feed cross-contamination to the importation offrozen pork.
35. India – Import restrictions on bovine semen
Raised by: Canada, European Communities
Supported by: United States
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 19 ), (G/SPS/R/18, paras. 23-25), June 2000
(G/SPS/R/19, paras. 24-25), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 18-22),
March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 40-43) , July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 51)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/113
Solution (if reported): Change of relevant regulations and expected solution reported in July 2001.
125. In March 1999, the European Communities indicated that bilateral contact with India
regarding import restrictions on bovine semen had not been successful, and submitted a list of specific
questions.  In March 2000, the European Communities reported that no information had been receivedG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 36
from India, although there had been some bilateral and multilateral contacts.  India presented some
information to the EC delegate at that time.
126. In March 2000, Canada expressed concern that India was banning imports of bovine semen
from Canada because of BSE concerns, although Canada was BSE-free, and although BSE was not
transmissible through semen according to the OIE.  India clarified that the measure was a licensing
process, not a ban, which had been imposed to avoid inadvertent introduction of BSE or scrapie intoIndia.  India had prepared a questionnaire for its trading partners and was planning to carry out a risk
assessment based on the responses.  The representative of India indicated that he would bring the
Canadian concerns to the attention of his authorities in order to solve the problem bilaterally as soon
as possible.
127. In June 2000, Canada informed the Committee that bilateral consultations had failed to
resolve the matter, and that India continued to restrict Canadian exports of bovine semen despite (i)
Canada being BSE-free, (ii) OIE confirmation that BSE was not transmissible through semen, (iii) the
OIE specifically not calling for restrictions on trade in bovine semen, and (iv) the absence of a risk
assessment to justify India's ban on bovine semen.  Canada asked that India remove this restriction.
India noted that recent bilateral consultations had been helpful and that efforts were being made to
find a solution to the dispute.
128. In November 2000, Canada, supported by the European Communities, reiterated its concerns
regarding India's BSE-related restrictions on bovine semen imports, despite Canada's BSE freedom,
and despite agreement in the OIE and other veterinary bodies that BSE was not transmitted by semen.
In September 2000, India had indicated that it intended to continue this unjustified prohibition, despite
the lack of risk assessment for the measure.  India reported that detailed bilateral consultations were
ongoing.  The Indian Animal Husbandry Commi ssion had met on 11 September 2000 and had noted
the findings of the EC Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) regarding the difficulty of making precise
estimates of the risks of infectivity of various products including semen.
129. India further reported that it had sought detailed information from the OIE regarding the basis
for determining that BSE was not transmitted by se men, as well as information on the criteria for
determining if a country or zone was free from BSE.  However, to date no reply had been receivedfrom the OIE.
130. The European Communities observed that India was referring to a scientific opinion which
had been published in 1998, which had subsequently been modified through various meetings of the
OIE.  The representative of the OIE indicated that the issue of bovine semen had been examined on
various occasions at the OIE, and the results of these examinations had been provided to India,however, the OIE would again send India all of the relevant information.
131. In March 2001, Canada and India announced that they had agreed to informal discussions
under the SPS Agreement and hoped that the matter would be resolved soon.  Canada recalled the
OIE statement confirming that BSE could not be transmitted by semen (G /SPS/GEN/230).  India
stressed that it was not trying to give an unfair advantage to domestic producers.  The socio-religious
conditions related to the treatment of cows in India were such that India had to be extremely cautious.
India asked Canada to cooperate with India's risk assessment, which would take at least another six
months to complete.  Canada questioned the need to carry out the risk assessment, since according to
the OIE there was no risk of disease transmission th rough semen.  India and Canada intended to raise
the issue at the OIE.
132. In July 2001, Canada reported that it was engaged in bilateral consultations under the SPS
Agreement with India.  There had been certain positive developments and Canada hoped to quicklyG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 37
resolve the issue.  India indicated that the relevant regulations had been changed, and that the changes
would soon be notified.
36. Israel - Notification G/SPS/N/ISR/2 on TSE-related import restrictions of live cattle
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by: Switzerland
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 35-36)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ISR/2
Solution (if reported):
133. The European Communities said that it was not entirely clear how Israel categorized
countries' BSE status, and that the notification did not provide sufficient information.  It listed a
number of requirements which appeared not to be justified, and were not based on OIE
recommendations.  The European Communities requested an explanation of the notified legislation,
and submitted a number of questions for written comment by Israel.  Israel requested the EC questionsin writing.
37. Israel – Measures affecting imports of bovine meat
Raised by: Uruguay
Supported by: Argentina, Brazil
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 9-11), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 6),
November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported): Issue resolved.
134. In March 1997, Uruguay indicated that Israel had adopted BSE-related measures, including
requirements that bovine meat come from cattle with a maximum age of 36 months, which had not
been notified to WTO.  Since the measure did not take into account the sanitary conditions in the
country of origin, the potential effect on bilateral trade was serious.  Israel replied that it had notifiedexporting countries of the planned measure which was based on a questionnaire circulated to beef
exporting countries.  Israel took note of the concerns expressed.  In July 1997, Uruguay reported that
bilateral consultation were taking place and that progress had been satisfactory.  In November 2000,
Uruguay reported that the issue had been resolved.
38. Poland - Notifications on veterinary measures and measures on animal products
including gelatin
Raised by: Switzerland, United States
Supported by: Brazil, European Communities
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 48-49), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras.
46-48), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/POL/3, G/SPS/N/POL/5, G/SPS/N/POL/13, G/SPS/N/POL/14 and
Add.1, G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported):
135. In June 1998, the United States sought clarification of the status of this temporary ban, its
scientific basis, and whether future amendments were being considered.  Brazil, the European
Communities, Switzerland and the United States expressed hope that the disease status of the
supplying country, scientific factors related to the infectivity of gelatin and gelatin-containingproducts, as identified by the OIE, and non-discrimination between suppliers with similar BSEG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 38
conditions would all be taken into account in future amendments.  Poland indicated that the measure
in question would remain in force until the end of June 1998, and would be replaced by a measure
reflecting the present state of scientific knowledg e.  Regarding different treatment of Switzerland, the
United Kingdom and Ireland, the new regulations had not yet been adopted by the Polish
Government.  Poland committed to providing a response on the basis of written questions from
Switzerland.
136. In September 1998, Switzerland reported on informal consultations with Poland regarding
border measures in relation to BSE which differentiated only between countries with a higher
incidence of BSE and those of low incidence.  This constituted a departure from OIE
recommendations, which also took into account surv eillance and prevention systems.  The European
Communities indicated that imports from herds without BSE history should be accepted even for
products in the highest risk category.  Poland explained that the measure had been taken in relation to
the BSE situation in the concerned countries.   Bilateral consultations were ongoing with the UnitedKingdom, Ireland and Switzerland.  The BSE situation was under permanent surveillance and all
results would be taken into account during the year-end review of Poland's regulations.
137. In July 2001, the United States indicated that bilateral discussions on certification
requirements for bovine gelati n continued (G/SPS/GEN/265).
39. South Africa - Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from member States of the European
Communities
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 32-33), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and
Corr.1, paras. 19-21)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ZAF/2, G/SPS/GEN/95
Solution (if reported):
138. In March 1998, the European Communities noted that the South African ban on beef imports
applied to all EC member States.  This was unjustified in light of measures taken at EC and national
level in countries were BSE cases had occurred.  In addition, South African requirements were not in
accordance with OIE standards.  South Africa stressed that the European Communities were a major
supplier of meat to South Africa, and that South Af rica had no interest in having consumers consider
EC meat as unsafe.  However, South Africa wanted  to maintain its BSE-free status, and protect human
and animal health.  South Africa invited the European Communities to provide written comments.
139. In September 1998, the European Communities again raised this issue.  South Africa replied
that written comments from the European Communities had only recently been received.  In March
and July 1998, South Africa had provided to the European Communities a written explanation of themeasure in question.  Furthermore, South Africa had reiterated its invitation to the European
Communities to submit evidence which would permit a re-evaluation of its decision, possibly on an
individual EC member State basi s.  In accordance with Article 5.7, South Africa would review its
measure in the light of additional information.  The European Communities recognized that it had yet
to provide a written reply to South Africa's request for information, and welcomed the invitation forbilateral discussions of the issue.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 39
40. United States – Measures related to BSE
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, New Zealand, Switzerland
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 10-12), June 1998
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/66, G/SPS/N/USA/106
Solution (if reported):
140. In March 1998, the European Communities complained that recent US measures were neither
in conformity with the SPS Agreement nor with the OIE, and were singling out Europe.  TheEuropean Communities rejected US claims that inadequate surveillance in relation to BSE was a
problem within the European Communities and indicated that the European Communities was about
to introduce a harmonized surveillance system.  The United States replied that it was receiving
numerous comments to its interim measure, which was intended to protect animal and consumer
health from BSE in light of the unclear information on the distribution of BSE on the Europeancontinent.  Trade would resume when the countries in question had systems that met US criteria.  The
United States would evaluate the data submitted, and would take the necessary measures based on
science and risk assessment.  Argentina noted that BSE was a European problem with important
potential consequences for the rest of the world, and that it required a joint effort of political and
scientific authorities to find a solution based on the available knowledge to avoid unnecessary tradedisruption.
141. In June 1998, the European Communities drew attention to the recent OIE indication that
when a country had no native cases of BSE and surveillance systems were in place for seven years,
trade in meat could take place.   The OIE also provided the basis on which trade could take place with
countries of low incidence of BSE.  The criteria on which US decisions would be based were still notclear to the European Communities.  The United States announced that comments and information
received were being incorporated into the risk asse ssment, taking into account the discussions in the
OIE framework.  The updated rule would soon be published and notified, and responses would be
provided to all comments received.
B. 
ISSUES RELATED TO FOOT -AND-MOUTH DISEASE (FMD)
41. Canada and the United States - Import restrictions due to FMD
Raised by: Hungary
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  90-91), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 133)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
142. In March 2001, Hungary expressed concern about reported US and Canadian import bans on
Hungarian meat products in reaction to incidences of FMD in France.  Canada and the United States
clarified that they had not placed any restrictions on the importation of products from Hungary.  In
July 2001, Hungary reiterated its concern regarding US measures on meat and other animal products
that were in force since May 2000.  Hungary referr ed to G/SPS/GEN/266, which listed Hungary as a
country free of FMD and rinderpest.  The United States offered to work with the appropriate officialsto explain the situation.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 40
42. Certain Members - FMD-related import restrictions
Raised by: Argentina, European Communities
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 56-64), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras.
20-23)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/269
Solution (if reported): New Zealand, Indonesia, Ukraine and Switzerland lifted restrictions against
EC member States after they regained FMD-free status.
143. In July 2001, the European Communities observed that many Members had imposed
restrictions on products that had been treated in accordance with the international standard to destroy
the FMD virus, and had kept them in place beyond the recognized waiting period of three months.
The principles of proportionality, justification of measures and regionalization in accordance with the
OIE Code and Article 6 had not been followed.  Although border controls within the EuropeanCommunities had been eliminated, they had been replaced by other control instruments.
144. Argentina expressed concern that many products from Argentina were facing scientifically
unjustified restrictions that violated Articles 2.1, 3.1 and 5.1 and the OIE Code.  Plant products,
except straw and forage, should normally not be affected by FMD-related measures.
145. Australia explained that it was asking for reasonable information to allow a scientific
judgement in the face of a different clinical presentation in sheep.  Recently, additional restrictions on
Denmark and Austria and on race horses from the European Communities had been lifted.  Australia
would re-examine the restrictions as requested information was received.  The United States clarified
that its FMD measures on EC countries affected only the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands
and France.  The United States had lifted restrictions on EC member States that had not had FMDcases in May 2001, and was currently evaluating the situation in France and Ireland.  The OIE
representative drew the attention of the Committee to G/SPS/GEN/266, which in Annex 1 contained a
list of countries that had been confirmed as free of FMD without vaccination, including several EC
member States.  G/SPS/GEN/240 contained the re levant Code chapter on FMD, which had been
thoroughly reviewed between 1990 and 1997 and should be taken into account by WTO Members.
146. The European Communities noted its long tradition of good trade with Uruguay and
Argentina, and hoped the situation would soon be re solved.  In the EC view, Australia's questionnaire
was out of proportion with the problem to be addressed.  It was not acceptable that non-affected
countries received a questionnaire corresponding to an affected country wanting to be declared free of
FMD.  The European Communities appreciated the US reaction regarding unaffected countries, and
asked the United States to follow the example of Canada and New Zealand in handling the crisis.
Brazil and Bolivia expressed concern that Members were departing from the principles of the SPSAgreement.
147. In October 2001, the European Communities expressed concern over continued Australian
restrictions, which affected member States in which there had been no outbreaks of FMD and were
based on a failure by these countries to reply to an Australian questionnaire.  Canadian and US
restrictions against Greece also affected a member State where no outbreak had occurred and that hadbeen declared FMD-free in the meantime.  The Eu ropean Communities also brought to the attention
of the Committee continued US, Japanese and Mexican restrictions against France, the Netherlands
and Ireland.  New Zealand, Indonesia, Ukraine and Switzerland had lifted restrictions against member
States after they had regained FMD-free status.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 41
148. Australia reported that it was now able to recognize all member States except the United
Kingdom as FMD-free.  Japan stated that bilateral consultations were continuing with France, Ireland
and the Netherlands.  The United States reported that import restrictions continued to apply to the
United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France and Ireland.  The United States recognized that the disease
outbreaks in these countries were limited, no remaining technical concerns existed, and the United
States was taking the necessary regulatory actions to publicize the proposals in the Federal Register.Concerning Greece, the product ban pre-dated the current FMD outbreak and was a separate issue.
Canada recalled that Greece had only recently expressed an interest in exporting meat products to
Canada, and the request was being evaluated.
43. Chile - FMD restrictions
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 90-91)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
149. Argentina was concerned about Chile's draft regulations on fresh or frozen beef, which
categorized countries according two categories: FMD-free with or without vaccination.  These draft
rules seemed to be more restrictive than the OIE standard, which allowed for the possibility ofpermitting imports from FMD-infected countries or zones as long as certain risk mitigation
procedures had been used.  Argentina requested Chile to provide sufficient scientific justification as
required by Article 3.3.  Chile replied that that it was premature to discuss the issue as the draft
regulation had not yet been circulated internationally and a bilateral technical meeting was scheduled
for early November.  The deadline for public comments had only just passed and comments receivedhad not yet been considered.  Chile had not yet been asked to provide a risk assessment by the
Argentine authorities.
44. Indonesia - FMD restrictions
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 92-93) (see also #42)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
150. Argentina noted it had raised concerns about Indonesia's FMD restrictions on certain
products.  Although Indonesia had informed Argentina that certain products had been re-classified,
the changes had not been implemented and Argentina was still unable to export the products
concerned, mainly vegetables and corn.  Indonesia stated that the ban on Argentine corn had beenlifted as of August 2001.  Indonesia looked forward to holding further bilateral discussions.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 42
45. Japan - Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top from Indonesia
Raised by: Indonesia
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 32-35), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras.
24-25)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
151. In July 2001, Indonesia raised concerns regarding Japan's restrictions on the importation of
sugar cane top for fear of contamination with FMD, although Indonesia was recognized as free from
FMD.  Indonesia had cooperated with Japan's assessment of the FMD situation in Indonesia, but was
concerned about delays and information requirements.  Indonesia intended to provide the information,
but requested a clear schedule to ensure a speedy solution.  Indonesia and Argentina requested the
OIE to explain whether these restrictions could be justified.  Japan replied that it had notified theanimal health authorities in Indonesia of the additional information needed for the analysis and was
waiting for Indonesia's response.  The OIE confirmed that Indonesia had been recognized as free from
FMD without vaccination (G/SPS/GEN/266, Annex 1).  The International Animal Health Code
contained a list of products which could transmit FMD, and the list did not include sugar cane
(G/SPS/GEN/240).  The Code considered that other products, such as cereals, fruits, vegetables androots did not present a risk.
152. In October 2001, Indonesia reported that in addition to informal bilateral consultations,
Indonesia had also provided detailed information requested in a questionnaire from Japan.  Indonesia
was willing to furnish all necessary documentation, as any protraction of this problem would have
detrimental effects on the Indonesian economy.  Japan stated that at a bilateral meeting certainmisunderstandings had been cleared up.  Japan looked forward to receiving such information as was
necessary to resolve this problem.
46. Japan - Measures regarding FMD
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 46)
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/Notif.97.357
Solution (if reported):
153. Argentina raised questions on the notified TBT measure, which authorized imports of FMD
inactivated vaccine (but only the O type of FMD inactivated virus), and exempted traders from
undergoing the usual approval procedures.  Three co untries were designated as suppliers: Germany,
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.  Argentina sought clarification regarding (a) the currentFMD-status of Japan since the decision to import FMD vaccines took effect; (b) the criteria used to
designate only three sources of supply; (c) whether Japan considered itself a "zero-risk" country and
whether a risk assessment had been carried out in support of this "zero-risk" status; and (d) since
Argentina was declared free of FMD with vaccination by the OIE, how Japan viewed its current
policy not to import Argentine meat.  Japan explained that the notified measure was an amendment tothe approval procedures regarding the import of vaccines for emergencies.  It was a precautionary
measure following the outbreak of FMD in Chines e Taipei in March 1997.  Argentina indicated it
would provide its questions in writing to Japan.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 43
47. Korea – Import restrictions on beef
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 13-14)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/109 and G/SPS/GEN/130
Solution (if reported):
154. Argentina raised concerns regarding Korea's denial of access to Argentine beef without
specifying its sanitary requirements or visiting Argentina to verify its sanitary status.  Korea repliedthat since it  had been free of FMD for 60 years, it applied very strict requirements.  Korea believed it
was acting consistently with OIE recommendations, and offered to discuss the matter bilaterally.
48. Mexico - Import restrictions on beef
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 12)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/109 and G/SPS/GEN/129
Solution (if reported):
155. Argentina indicated it had not received a satisfa ctory answer to repeated requests that Mexico
provide information on its specific sanitary requirements for beef imports and the related risk
assessments.  Argentina recalled that it was free of FMD.  Mexico took note of Argentina's concerns
and expressed hope to resolve the matter bilaterally.
49. Norway – Restrictions on gelatin imports
Raised by: Brazil
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1996 (G/SPS/R/4, para. 47), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 24-
25), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 19-20)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported): Import conditions clarified.
156. In March 1996, Brazil informed the Committee that Norway had halted the issuance of import
licenses for Brazilian gelatin because of the existence of FMD in Brazil.  Consultations with Norway
had been initiated in 1995, and Norwegian authorities had reportedly declared the problem wassolved.  Nevertheless, import licenses continued to be denied.  Norway stated that the ban on gelatin
imports from Brazil would be lifted in the context of recent changes to import regulations.  The two
Members agreed to continue their consultations.
157. In September 1998, Brazil reported that bilateral contacts had not resulted in a lifting of the
ban.  Norway explained the conditions it applied to imports of Brazilian gelatin, and stated that
applications fulfilling these conditions would be accepted.  In November 1998, Brazil thanked
Norway for having clarified its import requirements.  Brazil would have no problem meeting theserequirements and looked forward to resuming its gelatin exports to Norway.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 44
50. Romania - Notification G/SPS/N/ROM/3 on FMD measures
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 38-39)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ROM/3
Solution (if reported):
158. Argentina questioned the objective indicated on Romania's notification, which made reference
to food safety and the need to protect humans from animal diseases.  FMD did not affect humanhealth, hence the justification of the measure on food safety grounds raised systemic issues.  Although
mention of the objectives did not modify the scope of the measures, Argentina sought clarification on
the basis of which the measure was declared and suggested that animal health was the only
appropriate basis for the measure to be taken.  Romania noted that FMD could be transmitted by
humans.  Although Romania was aware that FMD meas ures were intended mainly to protect animal
health, the reference in the notification to the objective and rationale did not amplify or modify the
scope of the measures in any way.
51. Slovenia - Notification G/SPS/N/SVN/8 on FMD measures
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 130)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SVN/8
Solution (if reported):
159. Argentina noted that this notification indicated that Slovenia's FMD measure had been taken
with the objectives of protecting animal health, and of protecting humans against an animal/plant pest
or disease.  Argentina considered that the second objective was not justified since FMD did not affect
human beings.
52. Turkey – Import ban on livestock
Raised by: United States, Hungary
Supported by: Australia, European Communities, New Zealand, Uruguay
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, para. 33), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,
paras. 7-10), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, paras. 12-14), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22,
para. 127), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 33)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN265
Solution (if reported): The United States reported in July 2001 that its concerns were resolved.
Hungary's concerns are outstanding.
160. In June 1998, the United States sought clarification from Turkey whether its FMD-related
import ban on cattle and meat products had ever been officially published or notified to the WTO.
The United States requested an explanation of the measure's scientific basis, especially in view of theFMD-free status of the United States.  In September 1998, the United States noted that Turkey had
extended its import ban for the eighth time.  Turkey replied that the policy was geared at preventing
the spread of FMD in the country.  A rigorous nation-wide eradication programme was in place, and
considerable progress had been made.  Turkey believed that the application of temporary measures
with the objective of creating the necessary animal health conditions within its borders was justified,but was open to dialogue with its trading partners to reach a mutually agreeable solution.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 45
161. In June 2000, Hungary recalled that several Members had challenged the WTO-consistency
of Turkey's import restrictions on live cattle and beef meat.  Hungary had been free from FMD for
nearly 20 years, and had pursued FMD control policies which made vaccination redundant.  Hungary
suggested the Turkish ban violated Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  Based on Articles 5.1 and 5.8,
Hungary asked Turkey to provide its risk assessment on the importation of live cattle and beef from
FMD-free countries.  New Zealand asked if Turkey had an import licensing system, and if so, howrisk was assessed and how licenses were issued.  Turkey committed to providing a report on an
interdepartmental review of the sanitary measures.
162. In July 2001, the United States indicated that Turkey had assured the United States in
September 1999 that the import ban was no longer in force (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States
considered this trade concern resolved.  In October 2001, Hungary reported that its concerns were still
outstanding.
C. 
OTHER ISSUES CONCERNING ANIMAL HEALTH
53. Australia - Import restrictions on prawn and prawn products
Raised by: Thailand on behalf of ASEAN
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 84-85), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras.
109-111)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/124, G/SPS/N/AUS/126
Solution (if reported):
163. In March 2001, Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, drew attention to Australia's notifications
regarding its risk analysis and interim measure on prawn and prawn products, which required risk
management measures for White Spot Syndrome and Yellow Head Virus.  Prior to the deadline forcomments, Australia had imposed an interim m easure on imports of uncooked prawn and prawn
products from ASEAN countries, and which was base d on the fact that the imported prawn might
illegally be used as fishing bait.  ASEAN objected to the inclusion of illegal domestic practices as a
major element in risk analysis.  Thailand urged Australia to lift this interim measure, which was more
restrictive than necessary and inconsistent with Article 5.  Australia explained that the measures were
the result of an outbreak of exotic White Spot Virus disease.  Investigations had revealed that far more
imported prawns were being used for bait than had been previously thought, and a 15 g cut off pointwas introduced.  The additional measures applied only to whole green and unpeeled headless green
prawns from areas not free of White Spot Disease.  The risk analysis was progressing and comments
would be taken into account.
164. In October 2001, Thailand again expressed serious concern about the inclusion of Australia's
domestic enforcement practices as a major element in Australia's risk analysis.  Thailand urgedAustralia to lift the interim measures taken on the basis of this risk analysis, as ASEAN believed the
measures were not based on scientific evidence and were more trade restrictive than necessary.
Australia believed its measures to be scientifically valid.  The risk analysis was continuing and would
result in final measures.  An application for equivalence for highly processed prawn products was
being examined and, if approved, would result in less trade restrictive measures.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 46
54. Argentina - Temporary prohibition of fresh pork and products
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 34-35)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/9
Solution (if reported):
165. The European Communities observed that the Argentine measure applied to the entire
European Communities.  The European Communities had taken measures to regionalize the ECmember States with restrictions with regard to Classic Swine Fever.  Argentina replied that it believed
in the principle of regionalization, but had found that there was no basis to assume compliance within
the European Communities.  Argentina had requested information from a number of EC member
States, but only four countries had responded.  Clas sic Swine Fever was a highly infective OIE List A
disease which had not occurred in Argentina since 1985.  Argentina would assess informationreceived so as to adjust its measure as appropriate.
55. Australia - Notification G/SPS/N/AUS/72 on quarantine requirements for chicken meat
Raised by: Thailand
Supported by: European Communities
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 42-45), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25,
para. 37)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/72, G/SPS/GEN/90, G/SPS/GEN/96, see also G/SPS/R/13,
G/SPS/GEN/137 and GSPS/W/107/Rev.1
Solution (if reported):
166. In September 1998, Thailand believed that Australia's requirement for the importation of
chicken meat was in excess of what was needed to protect health, and was not viable for commercial
manufacturing.  The European Communities added that Australia's recommended temperature andtime requirements created an extreme and unnecessary barrier to trade, and committed to providing a
list of relevant questions to Australia.  Australia replied that its import requirements were based on
scientific principles and data.  AQIS had based the final heating requirements on research on the
inactivation of infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV)  strain CS88, a highly virulent strain exotic to
Australia.  Extensive consultations had been held with Thai and other quarantine authorities to discussthe issue, and Australia was prepared to provide any further information requested.  Australia was
considering whether additional scientific research could be usefully conducted to enhance scientific
understanding and methods of inactivation of various poultry pathogens.
167. In October 2001, Thailand reported that the Department of Livestock Development was
finalising its risk analysis on IBVD.  A public hearing would be held before the analysis waspresented to Australia.  In May 2001, the OIE had agreed to conduct research on appropriate heat
treatment to inactivate the IBD virus in poultry.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 47
56. Australia – Ban on salmon imports
Raised by: Canada, United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, paras. 13-15), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 58)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/3
Solution (if reported): Dispute settlement (W/DS18 and W/DS26, respectively).  Mutually agreed
resolution between Canada and Australia reported in May 2000.
168. In October 1996, the United States reported that Australia maintained a ban on North
American fresh, chilled or frozen salmon on the grounds that imports might transmit diseases and
pathogens to Australian fishery stocks.  In 1994, Australia published a draft risk assessment which
indicated there was little risk from imported North American salmon.  However, Australia did not
adjust its measure to reflect the results of that risk assessment, but instead undertook another risk
assessment, completed in May 1996, which again failed to find a scientific basis for maintaining theban.  The United States expected that when the final report was published, the ban would be lifted,
especially since the salmon in question complied with OIE standards.
169. Australia indicated that the 1995 draft risk assessment had been revised in response to the
large number of comments received.  Comments, including from the United Stated and Canada, had
again been received on the 1996 draft risk assessment, which would be finalized by the end of 1996.Australia noted that the OIE standard did not meet its appropriate level of protection.  In March 1997,
Canada and the United States again noted their concern that Australia had decided to maintain its ban
on salmon imports.  Canada had formally requested the establishment of a panel in the Dispute
Settlement Body.
57. Bolivia - Restrictions on poultry meat imports
Raised by: Chile
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/29, para. 94), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.
33-35), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 132)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported): Agreement on a protocol and progress reported in July 2001.
170. In November 2000, Chile reported that in August 2000 it had consulted with the authorities of
Bolivia, in the context of Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, regarding requirements on poultry meat
imports with respect to Inclusion body hepatitis.  This disease was endemic to Bolivia and restrictions
on imports from Chile were not justified.  Chile hoped that this issue would soon be resolved.  The
representative of Bolivia indicated that he would transmit this information to his authorities.
171. In March 2001, Chile noted that Bolivia had failed to notify the measure, and requested that a
scientific risk assessment be carried out as quickly as possible.  Bilateral discussions on the issue had
ceased since August 2000.  Bolivia explained that import conditions for poultry and other agricultural
products had been changed because of problems which Inclusion body hepatitis caused in the bird
population and the associated negative economic impact.  During the last five years, Bolivia's state
veterinary laboratories had determined the clinical absence of Inclusion body hepatitis in Bolivia, butthe disease had been diagnosed in Chile.  Regarding preventive vaccination, Bolivia stated that this
was justifiable only if the virus was present on a farm.  Secondly, total protection against the disease
was only possible if the serotype present in the vaccination was the same as that present in farm
strains.  Thirdly, successful protection depended on other immuno-suppressant factors, and in Chile
there was a risk of Avian infectious anaemia.  Bolivia's National Food and Agricultural HealthG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 48
Service was revising the standard, and would inform Chile of the results.  Bolivia wished to solve the
matter expediently and to the benefit of both parties.
172. In July 2001, Chile informed the Committee that the sanitary authorities of both countries had
agreed to work on a protocol, and thanked Bolivia for the progress made.
58. Czech Republic – Regulation concerning warehouses and silos
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 54)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported): EC satisfied with Czech clarifications.
173. The European Communities sought clarification of a Czech regulation requiring warehouses
and silos for animal feed to be under state control for purposes of quality assurance.  The Czech
Republic indicated that it wished to pursue the matte r bilaterally with EC veterinary authorities.  In
February 2001, the Czech Republic indicated that the European Communities had accepted its
clarifications.
59. El Salvador – Restrictions on meat and dairy products
Raised by: Uruguay
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 85), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20,
para. 32)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported): Issue resolved.
174. In November 1999, Uruguay reported on problems with exports of meat and dairy products to
El Salvador on sanitary grounds, although no concrete sanitary problems or regulations had been
mentioned.  The representative of El Salvador indicated that these concerns would be transmitted tothe appropriate authorities.  In November 2000, Uruguay reported that the issue that been resolved.
60. European Communities - Ban on antibiotics in feed
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Australia, Canada
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 26-29)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported):
175. The United States noted the failure of the European Communities to notify the ban on four
antibiotics used in animal feed to enhance production that had been adopted in December 1998.
Canada and Australia shared the US concern, and Canada requested to be informed when the
European Communities reviewed its measure, which it understood to be provisional.  The European
Communities replied that this was an interim protective measure which would be re-examined beforethe end of December 2000.  The results of the re-examination would be shared with Members, as well
as published electronically.  The measure had not been notified because it did not contain any
provision applicable to imports, and therefore had no effect on trade.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 49
61. European Communities – Salmonella-related restriction on fishmeal imports
Raised by: Chile and Peru
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 48-50)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported):
176. Chile and Peru sought clarification regarding the EC directive governing exports of fishmeal,
which was not applied to substitutes to fishmeal.  These substitutes could also potentially becontaminated with salmonella, as had been confirmed by recent research carried out in the United
Kingdom.  The European Communities indicated that the directive was justified on the basis of
available scientific information, although working groups were considering whether similar criteria
should be applied to feedingstuffs of vegetable origin.  Some EC member States had introduced heat
treatment requirements, although others had found that there were not sufficient grounds forintroducing such criteria.
177. Chile also raised concerns with unilateral import prohibitions by France and Italy affecting
fishmeal for feeding ruminants, including mixtur es with bone meal, with the alleged objective of
preventing risk arising from contamination.  The European Communities answered that it needed to
effectively enforce its mammalian protein feed ban to ruminants, but was facing practical difficultiesin segregating the origins of various raw materi als, including fish.  The European Communities
indicated it would examine the issue together with the two member States involved.
62. India – Restrictions on imports of horses
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 20)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/112
Solution (if reported):
178. The European Communities indicated that trade in horses with India had been interrupted,
although the necessary health guarantees had not been identified.  Import restrictions were based on
the presence of contagious equine metritis.  The EC representative presented a series of questions to
India, including a request for justification of India's measure which was more stringent than the OIECode.
63. United States - Regionalization in relation to animal health
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para. 15)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/37
Solution (if reported):
179. The European Communities welcomed a US notification on the introduction of
regionalization in import policy and internal control policy in relation to animal health, but was
concerned that the proposed measure did not meet the criteria of a true regionalization approach in
conformity with what had been discussed at the OIE.  The United States stressed the purpose of the
proposed measure was to facilitate trade and to fulfil the obligation of the United States under the SPSAgreement, in particular Article 5.2 on risk assessment.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 50
64. Venezuela - Import conditions for pork meat and products
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 67)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported):
180. The European Communities reported that Venezuela had denied access to Danish pork meat
and products without clearly indicating the import conditions or the relevant provisions.  The ECrepresentative urged the Venezuelan authorities to notify the relevant measures, giving other Members
a chance to comment.
65. Venezuela – Measures related to Avian Influenza
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 25), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/19, G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported):
181. In July 1997, the United States informed that non-pathogenic Avian Influenza had been
detected in a few north-eastern US states.  As a consequence, Venezuela had banned the importation
of US poultry and products.  The United States contested the scientific basis for this measure and was
concerned that it had not been notified.
182. In July 2001, the United States indicated that Venezuela had acted in June 2000 to allow
market access for US processed poultry (G/SPS/GEN/265).  Venezuelan authorities had not
responded to requests from the United States to pursue this matter bilaterally.  The United States
believed that the measures lacked scientific justification and considered this trade concern unresolved.
III. PLANT HEALTH
66. Australia - Access of California table grapes
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Philippines on behalf of ASEAN, European Communities
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  92-94), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 65-
67), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 26)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
183. In March 2001, the United States indicated that for the past 10 years there had been
difficulties in exporting California table grapes to Australia.  Even under Australia's new IRA process,
delays and requests for additional information and documentation had continued, although nearly a
year had elapsed since the release of the import risk assessment (IRA).  Australia had conductedadditional studies, the latest focussing on the glassy-winged sharpshooter and Pierce's Disease.  The
United States maintained that these additional studies were not justified, and urged Australia to
modify its import restrictions consistent with the IRA and its obligations under Article 5.1.  Australia
explained that the administrative process was not complete until the Director of Plant and Animal
Quarantine made a final decision.  Australia was free of Pierce's Disease and believed that there was aG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 51
need for further scientific research.  A mission of scientists to the United States in 2000 had raised
questions about changes in the risk profile which required more information.  Australia was willing to
cooperate with the United States to learn more about this disease and its vector.  The Philippines, on
behalf of ASEAN, shared the US concern regarding Australia's phytosanitary regulatory process.
184. In July 2001, the United States expressed disappointment at Australia's apparent abandonment
of its commitment to a transparent, science-based risk assessment system.  The IRA process did notseem to have an end.  Australia had initiated new studies whose chief purpose seemed to be to delay
lifting the import prohibition on California table grapes.  Australia had pointed to the relatively recent
introduction of a leaf-hopping insect, the glassy-w inged sharpshooter, although its own IRA had noted
that the risks associated with this pest would be negligible.  Australia had decided more research on
risk mitigation for glassy-winged sharpshooters would be necessary.  Table grapes in California were
subject to numerous mitigations, and the United States was willing to address legitimate scientific
concerns.  However, additional research on a pest not found in shipments of table grapes wascompletely without scientific merit and was a delaying tactic.  Australia indicated that the change in
risk profile associated with the spread of Pierce's disease, and of its vector, the glassy-winged
sharpshooter, in California required additional scientific information to ensure protection from
quarantine risk.
185. In October 2001, the United States informed the Committee that constructive consultations
had been held to discuss quarantine procedures.  Both countries had agreed to continue the dialogue to
work toward a resolution of the outstanding issues.  Australia was confident that a mutually
acceptable solution could be found soon.
67. Australia – Notification on methyl bromide
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 95-96)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/118
Solution (if reported):
186. The European Communities was concerned with Australia's proposed introduction of
minimum standards for fumigation with methyl bromide, which required a minimum temperature of
10 degrees for fumigation.  This new measure could significantly constrain EC exports.  TheEuropean Communities requested additional information on Australia's risk assessment and any other
relevant evidence.  Australia responded that the proposed standard was the result of quarantine
breaches involving ineffective fumigation treatment of various imported goods.  To improve the
efficacy of fumigation prior to export, Australia developed a standard reflecting best practice
guidelines in the use of methyl bromide.  Australi a was still considering the comments it had received
on its notification of this proposed measure, and implementation of the new measure would be
delayed until early 2001.  With regard to the minimum temperature requirement, this was based on
expert advice and reflected the minimum temperature requirement established by the European Plant
Protection Organization.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 52
68. Australia – Import restrictions on durian
Raised by: Thailand
Supported by: European Communities, India, Philippines
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 11-14), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25,
paras. 107-108)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/217, G/SPS/GEN/218
Solution (if reported):
187. In November 2000, Thailand reported that it had sought access to the Australian market for
durian since 1991, but Australia had notified its draf t import risk analysis only in February 1999.  In
August 2000, Australia informed Thailand that durian fruit imports would be permitted only under
unduly restrictive conditions, including excessively trade restrictive sampling requirements.
Furthermore, the seasonal limitation on shipments, as well as the requirement that fruit come only
from the eastern region of Thailand, did not appear to be justified.
188. Australia noted that it had been difficult to obtain accurate information on the relevant
anthropod pests and diseases present in Thailand, although the numerous bilateral contacts on this
matter had resulted in an expansion of the scientific information available.  Australia noted that the
draft conditions established for import of fresh durian fruit had been discussed with the Thai
government.  The Australian delegate explained the justification for the requirements andacknowledged that the conditions were very strict, but justified based on the pest and disease situation
of Thailand.  Nonetheless, these conditions would be reviewed after one year of trade.
189. In October 2001, Thailand indicated that despite numerous bilateral meetings, no agreement
had been reached.  Thailand requested that Australia seek to adjust its import restrictions to make
them more commercially viable.  Australia replied that a risk analysis for durian had first beenfinalized in 2000.  The risk assessment indicated that other non-destructive methods of sampling
could be substituted if efficacy data could be presented to show they provided an equivalent level of
protection.  However, no information had been received from Thailand that X-ray technology or
irradiation could be equally effective.  Australia was keen to finalize bilateral arrangements so that
inspections of packing houses and orchards could begin in Thailand and import permits be issued.
Australia noted that it was willing to review arrangements after one year of trade to see if adjustments
could be made while maintaining Australia's biosecurity needs.
69. Australia – Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit
Raised by: Philippines, ASEAN
Supported by: Brazil, European Communities, India, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, United
States
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 67), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, paras. 15-20)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/189, G/SPS/GEN/194
Solution (if reported):
190. In March 2000, the Philippines reported that its exports, including mangoes, bananas and
pineapples, faced phytosanitary restrictions in Australia.  Australia explained that in response to a
request for access, Australia conducted an open, transparent and consultative process of scientific riskassessment and risk management to avoid the introduction of diseases.  Both countries indicated that
they were conducting bilateral consultations on the matter.
191. In June 2000, the Philippines pointed out that major ASEAN exports to Australia faced
stringent SPS measures that were not based on a risk assessment.  These measures were moreG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 53
restrictive than necessary, and should be reviewed within a reasonable period of time.  Malaysia
suggested Australia carry out ASEAN-wide risk asse ssments.  Australia offered detailed comments on
each of the points raised by the Philippines and noted that a formal response would be provided in due
course.  In response to Malaysia, Australia explained that pest risk analysis was specific to the trading
partners involved and varied according to the exporter's pest status.
192. The United States urged Australia to expedite its decisions regarding market access for
Florida citrus and California table grapes.  Australia replied that an import risk analysis had been
completed for table grapes, several appeals had been addressed, and the relevant information was
about to be released.  In response to Brazil’s comments regarding its market access applications for
mango and papaya, Australia confirmed that these were on the list of matters to be considered by
Australian risk analysts.  With reference to India's concern about market access for mangoes,
Australia reported that Indian authorities had provided helpful information regarding the efficacy of
treatment for pests in mangoes, and that Australia was currently evaluating that information.Regarding EC concerns, Australia confirmed that an import risk analysis was being conducted on
bulbs.  Australia noted that it was necessary to set priorities for risk assessment given scarce financial
and human resources.
70. Brazil – Import prohibition of coconut palms and related products
Raised by: Philippines
Supported by: Malaysia, Sri Lanka
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 25-26), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and
Corr.1, paras. 5-6)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/1
Solution (if reported):
193. In June 1998, the Philippines submitted a series of detailed questions to Brazil regarding its
import prohibition of coconut palms and related products.  Brazil answered that the measure was in
place to prevent the spread of quarantine pests.  Brazil continued to import coconut palms and related
products from pest-free countries, if shipments were accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, but
only one country had applied for pest-free status.  Brazil stressed that its measure was in conformity
with the SPS Agreement and the text of the IPPC, and that the risk assessment methodology used had
been notified.
194. In September 1998, the Philippines reported that it had received no clear answers from Brazil,
and reiterated its questions.  Brazil specified which diseases it was concerned about.  Its phytosanitary
requirements had been extended to desiccated coconut, as there was a risk of transmission of pests or
exotic pathogens.  Nonetheless, Brazil was prepared to discuss proposals for risk evaluation and
recognition of pest-free areas.
71. Brazil – Restrictions on imported wheat
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para s. 16-17), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported): Import of certain classes of wheat allowed as of early 2001.
195. In March 1997, the United States raised concern regarding Brazilian restrictions on wheat
imports intended to prevent the establishment of the fungus tilletia controversa  (TCK bunt or Dwarf
bunt).  However, a 1996 bilateral agreement was based on the understanding that the fungus inG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 54
question could not be established in Brazil, and the United States was not aware of scientific evidence
that might alter this conclusion.  Brazil responded that it had implemented new legislation on risk
assessment and risk management for several products as a result of harmonization efforts in the
MERCOSUR context.  Thus, a certificate of origin was required for wheat, to establish that the
product originated in a pest-free zone.  Scientific consultations between Brazilian and US experts had
yet to produce a final report on the risk posed by tilletia controversa  and tilletia indica  (Karnal bunt).
The 1996 bilateral agreement did not preclude Brazil from applying its internal legislation.
196. In July 2001, the United States reported that following extensive technical consultations,
Brazil had issued new import instructions in early 2001 that allow import of certain classes of US
wheat (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United states considered this trade concern resolved.
72. Canary Islands - Phytosanitary regulations
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 97-98)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
197. Argentina expressed concerns about the difference between phytosanitary regulations in the
Canary Islands and the European Communities, particularly as regarded apple and pear imports.  AsArgentina had demonstrated the equivalence of its measures in a communication to the EC
representative in March 2001, there seemed to be no reason to prohibit exports of apples and pears to
the Canary Islands.  Argentina questioned why the Canary Islands had been exempted from the scope
of EC Directive 2029, and asked for a probable date for the implementation of this regulation.
Argentina requested the acceptance of the equivalent measures proposed in March.  The EuropeanCommunities stated that it would provide Argentina with a bilateral reply in due course.
73. Chile – Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para s. 18-19), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GN/14, G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported): Restrictions on wheat removed in October 1997.  Import access granted for
certain fruit; consultations on other fruit continuing.
198. In March 1997, the United States expressed concerns that Chile's import requirements for
wheat and fruit did not recognize regional conditions in line with the SPS Agreement, nor IPPC
guidelines relating to pest-free areas.  With respect to wheat, Chile replied that the United States had
not asked to be recognized as free of tilletia indica  (Karnal bunt).  Regarding fruit, Chile stressed that
it had recognized areas free of the fruit flies anastrepha fraterculus  and ceratitis capitata
(Mediterranean fruit fly) in California, which would facilitate the entry of US exports.
199. In July 2001, the United States reported that following bilateral discussion, Chile had
removed restrictions on US wheat in October 1997 (G/SPS/GEN/265).  Import access had also been
granted for grapes, kiwis, avocados and lemons from California, apples and pears from Washington,and raspberries and shelled nuts from all US states.  According to the United States, Chile was
preparing new rules to allow imports of additiona l products.  The United States was working with
Chile on import conditions for other fruit.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 55
74. Cuba - Restrictions on apples and pears
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 101)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
200. Argentina expressed concerns that Cuba did not accept cold treatment as a quarantine
treatment for apples and pears.  Bilateral consultations had been held, and Argentina expected furtherinformation from Cuba on this issue.
75. Czech Republic - Imports of potatoes
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by: Argentina
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, pa ra. 27), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1,
paras. 51-53)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CZE/6, G/SPS/N/CZE/12, G/SPS/GEN/42
Solution (if reported): Second active ingredient approved, imports from EC resumed.
201. In October 1996, the European Communities expressed concern that the Czech Republic had
not specified a final date for comments on G/SPS/N/CZE/12.  The Czech Republic committed to
pursuing the matter bilaterally with the European Communities.  In October 1997, the European
Communities expressed concern over Czech import requirements for ware potatoes, which it did notbelieve to be based on scientific principles.  More over, equivalent methods of sprout treatment were
not allowed.  The European Communities pointed out that a Codex standard existed for the active
ingredient involved.  Argentina was concerned that the treatment had to be applied before harvest,
making a post-harvest decision to export to the Czech Republic impossible, although alternative
treatment methods existed.  Furthermore, it was not clear to Argentina whether the registrationprocedure concerned the entire product formula or only the active ingredient.
202. The Czech Republic explained that imported plant products could not be circulated
domestically if they contained residues of active plant protection ingredients not registered in the
Czech Republic.  Only one active ingredient had been approved, but registration procedures for a
second one were under way.  The Czech Republic believed that bilateral channels for resolving theissue, notably within the framework of the European Association Agreement, were far from
exhausted.
203. In February 2001, the Czech Republic reported that the second active agent had been
approved since 16 March 1998, and imports from the EC had resumed.
76. European Communities - Notification  G/SPS/N/EEC/131 regarding cut flowers
Raised by: Ecuador
Supported by: Israel, Kenya
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 45-48)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/131, G/SPS/GEN/278
Solution (if reported):
204. Ecuador indicated that it had submitted a list of questions regarding the scientific grounds for
the EC measure on cut flowers, the risk analysis, the methods to be used at entry ports, specialG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 56
treatment for developing countries, and possible alternative measures.  Israel expressed concern over
changes in inspection procedures that could detrimen tally affect deliveries to its major export market.
Kenya asked to receive a copy of the EC response to Ecuador's questions.  The European
Communities explained that the notification covered four harmful non-native organisms that were
regularly intercepted on certain commodities including cut flowers:  Amauromyza maculosa , Bemisia
tabaci  (non-European populations), Liriomyza sativae  and Thrips palmi .  At present, most cut flowers
were not subject to plant health checks, but it appeared they were a pathway for the organisms in
question, and control measures needed to be strengthened.  To assess the comments made by
Members, the proposed date of entry into force of the draft amended regulation had been deferred.
77. European Communities - Measures on imports of Egyptian potatoes
Raised by: Egypt
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 125-126)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
205. Egypt expressed concern that EC measures against imports of Egyptian potatoes, allegedly as
protection against the disease Pseudomonas solanacearum, severely restricted imports.  Importation of
Egyptian potatoes was prohibited unless they originated from agreed pest-free areas, and could besuspended if five interceptions of the bacterium occurred during the 2000-2001 import season.  Egypt
believed that these measures might not be in accordance with the relevant provision of the SPS
Agreement and the GATT 1994, and had prepared questions for the European Communities.  The
European Communities indicated that the questions would be answered, and clarified that Egyptian
potatoes received special treatment in the Europ ean Communities.  Imports were allowed until the
fifth detection of brown rot, which was a disease on the quarantine lists of IPPC and EPPO, while the
normal EC standard prohibited imports after one detection.  The special treatment had been granted in
consideration of Egypt's special efforts to cont rol the disease.  The European Communities had
received and was studying a document from Egypt containing a contingency plan for brown rot
potatoes.  Egypt had also requested determination of new free areas for export for the next season, and
the request was being considered.
78. European Communities - G/SPS/N/EEC/93 on wood packing material
Raised by: Canada
Supported by: Chile, Japan, Korea, United States
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 33-35)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/93
Solution (if reported):
206. Canada recognized that wood packing material was widely considered to be at risk of
containing plant pests.  However, it was used for a very large volume of products moving in
international trade, and the proposed EC measure would cover 69% of Canada's exports to the EC.
Furthermore, the IPPC was working on a comprehensive standard for all countries and all pests, to be
completed by July 2002, it would be best for all countries to focus their efforts on developing aninternational standard and refrain from taking un ilateral actions in this regard.  The United States
considered that it would be impossible to implement the certification and marking requirements
within the time-period set out in the EC notifi cation.  Korea stressed the need for the European
Communities to implement the least trade restrictive measure which would be effective, and in this
respect to take into consideration the historic experience of trade without pest introduction, the
processing of the packing materials, and the actual pest risks involved.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 57
207. The European Communities replied that pine wood nematode had been detected in packing
materials in 1998 and 1999, despite the existing EC requirements on wood packing materials.  The EC
Regulatory Committee for Plant Health was examining the comments which had been submitted on
the EC notification.  The European Communities was actively contributing to the IPPC efforts to
develop an international standard, however this did not replace the need for an emergency measure to
protect EC forests.  It was now obvious that the EC measure would not be finalized and implemented
on the 1 January 2000 date as initially proposed, and that bilateral and multilateral consultations
would continue.
79. European Communities - Citrus canker
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by: Brazil, Chile, South Africa, Uruguay
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 30-31), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 6-8),
June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 31-33)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/46, G/SPS/N/EEC/47, G/SPS/GEN/21, G/SPS/GEN/26
Solution (if reported): Measure revised in 1998, problems persisting.
208. In July 1997, Argentina requested bilateral consultations with EC experts on the proposed
measure on citrus canker, and that the measure be suspended during these consultations.  South Africa
requested that the European Communities reassess its measures in light of the fact that South Africawas free from citrus canker.  The European Communities noted that it was preparing a response to the
Argentine concern, and was open to consultations with interested parties.  The European Communities
was moving from a system with internal restrictions in the production areas of Italy, Greece and
Corsica to a truly single market with free movement of goods.  With no restriction on internal
movement of fruit, and considering the risk of introduction and the related economic consequences,alternative protection for the main producing areas had to be considered.  This included monitoring
requirements in the exporting country, treatment and certification. The European Communities
considered that its measures were based on science and minimized trade effects.
209. In March 1998, the European Communities reported that, in response to constructive
consultations organized by the Chairman and involving Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil and South
Africa, the measure had been revised and subsequently adopted.  The revised text included the
possibility for recognition of equivalent certification systems.  Argentina agreed, but noted thatnegotiations on equivalence were not yet finished.
210. In June 1998, the European Communities indicated that it had come to the conclusion that, for
the time being, Argentina could not objectively demonstrate the equivalence of its control measures
with EC requirements.  Argentina requested info rmation on the risk assessment undertaken by the
European Communities.
80. European Communities – Protected zones
Raised by: Uruguay
Supported by: Chile, Mexico, South Africa
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 60)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported):
211. Uruguay expressed concern about an EC decision to eliminate the criteria for protected zones
within the European Communities, as this might result in a strengthening of phytosanitary
requirements for the whole Community.  This could also have negative consequences for citrus fruitG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 58
exports from Chile.  Delegations requested a clarification of the scientific basis for this proposal.  The
representative of the European Communities indicated he would forward the concerns to the relevant
authorities.  He clarified that according to th e policy, access to the European Communities would
depend on the conditions in the country of origin.
81. Honduras – Restrictions on imports of rough rice
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 55), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported): Honduras lifted its restrictions in 1997, and the United States considers the
concern resolved.
212. In March 1997, the United States expressed concern that Honduras had not lifted its
restrictions on imports of rough rice.  Honduras assured the Committee that its authorities wouldattempt to find a rapid solution to the problem.
213. In July 2001, the United States reported that Honduras had lifted its restrictions in 1997
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States considers this trade concern resolved.
82. Indonesia - Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit
Raised by: New Zealand
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 8-10), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21,
paras. 44-45, July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 54-55)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/219
Solution (if reported): Lifting of restrictions announced in July 2001.
214. In November 2000, New Zealand noted that Indonesia had imposed restrictions on fresh fruit
from New Zealand since the discovery of two fruit flies in a residential area of New Zealand in May1996.  No fruit flies were ever found outside a 200 meter zone around the initial incursion, and no
fruit flies were trapped after three weeks.  A number of WTO Members imposed restrictions on New
Zealand fruit products following the initial incursion, but these restrictions were progressively lifted.
However, Indonesia continued to prohibit imports of fruit produced within a 15-km radius of the
incursion and required cold treatment of all fruit from New Zealand.  At bilateral consultations heldjust prior to the SPS Committee meeting, Indonesia had undertaken to review the information which
New Zealand had already provided.  Indonesia took note of New Zealand's concerns, and clarified that
it needed further documentation supporting New Zealand's claim of freedom from Mediterranean fruit
fly.  However, Indonesia had no intention of maintaining measures which were not justifiable under
the SPS Agreement and remained open to further consultations in order to achieve an acceptableresolution.
215. In March 2001, New Zealand reported that bilateral consultations had taken place, and that
Indonesia had indicated willingness to inspect the fruit fly surveillance and phytosanitary export
assurance systems in New Zealand.  Indonesia confirmed that officials were planning to visit New
Zealand in the near future.  Indonesia hoped that the visit would result in an expeditious solution.
216. In July 2001, New Zealand reported that following a successful technical visit, Indonesian
officials had informed New Zealand that the import restrictions on fresh fruit had been lifted with
immediate effect.  New Zealand looked forward to full implementation of this intent.  IndonesiaG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 59
confirmed that after bilateral consultations and inspection, the conclusion was that current
requirements such as cold treatment were no longer necessary.  Indonesia would immediately lift the
existing restrictions.
83. Indonesia - Fresh fruit and vegetables
Raised by: Australia, United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 22)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/2
Solution (if reported):
217. Australia and the United States sought clarification with regard to the scope of the Indonesian
regulation on fresh fruit and vegetables.  In bilateral discussions with Australia, Indonesian authorities
had referred to a problem arising from national practice, which precluded the circulation of draft
regulations.  The United States and Australia urged Indonesia to consider legislative adjustments toenable WTO Members to receive information on proposed measures sufficiently in time to be
assessed.  Australia appreciated Indonesian efforts to meet requests for additional information.
Indonesia regretted that the draft regulation had not yet been finalized, but assured the Committee that
a document containing detailed information about the proposed regulations would be provided in due
course.
84. Japan - Import measures on fire blight
Raised by: United States
Supported by: New Zealand, European Communities
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 27-29), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 9-
11)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
218. In July 2001, the United States maintained that Japan's requirements for imported apples were
unduly restrictive.  The United States and Japan had agreed on joint scientific research on apples and
fire blight, and the United States was disappointed that Japan had not relaxed its import restrictions in
accordance with the results of the research.  New Zealand agreed that Japan's phytosanitary measures
with respect to fire blight were not technically justifiable and should be modified accordingly.  NewZealand intended to engage Japan in further bilateral discussions on this issue.  Chile requested that
the follow-up to this situation be reported to the Committee.  Japan confirmed that the joint research
had been completed, and indicated that a risk analysis was being conducted based on the results.
There were some difficulties in finalizing the evaluation based solely on these results.  Japan desired
to continue the technical discussion between plant health authorities of both countries.
219. In October 2001, the United States reported on bilateral discussions on Japan's quarantine
procedures on US apples.  Although joint scientific research demonstrated that mature symptom-less
fruit was not a pathway for the transmission of fire blight, a mutually acceptable technical solution
had not been found.  The United States was considering what further steps, including dispute
settlement, it could take on the matter.  New Zealand announced it would also seek bilateraldiscussions with Japan on its import requirements for apples.  Japan stated that in order to complete
the technical evaluation, additional information had been requested from the United States. Further
bilateral contacts between the US and Japanese experts were considered appropriate.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 60
85. Japan – Testing requirements for different va rieties of apples, cherries and nectarines
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, paras. 11-12), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 57),
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported): Dispute settlement (W/DS/76) - mutually satisfactory solution notified in
August 2001.
220. In October 1996, the United States reported that, under a 1995 bilateral agreement, Japan
allowed two varieties of US apples into its market.  US suppliers had to conduct lengthy and
expensive tests to demonstrate that combined treatment of methyl bromide and cold storage was
effective in killing codling moths on both varieties.  These and other tests had demonstrated that the
effectiveness of this treatment did not vary among different varieties of fruit.  Nevertheless, Japancontinued to block the introduction of new varieties of US fruit by requiring such redundant testing.
The United States had formally initiated a consultation process with Japan under Article 5.8 of the
SPS Agreement.  Japan indicated that the formal exchange would be followed by a clarification
process involving technical experts until a solution was reached based on scientific principles.  In
March 1997, the United States indicated it was reviewing new information provided by Japan.  Japannoted that bilateral efforts would continue in order to reach a solution.
221. In a document introduced in July 2001, the United States indicated that despite extensive
consultations with Japan, the United States was still awaiting implementation of the Panel decision
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  A mutually satisfactory solution was notified in August 2001.
86. Japan - Plant quarantine regulations
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 26), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/19, G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported):
222. In March 1997, the United States informed the Committee of bilateral discussion with Japan
regarding its plant quarantine regulations.  Both Members agreed that the communication process hadflowed smoothly, and that this was a good exampl e of how the transparency provisions of the SPS
Agreement could enhance the understanding between Members on points of concern.  Japan
maintained that its proposed regulation was based on the pest-risk analysis guidelines of the IPPC.
223. In July 2001, the United States reported that it had continued to hold bilateral consultations
with Japan on aspects of its quarantine regulations, including measures related to apple imports(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States considers this trade concern unresolved.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 61
87. Japan - Notification on amendment of  the Japanese Plant Protection Law
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Chile, European Communities, New Zealand, Philippines
(ASEAN), Uruguay
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 31-34), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17,
para. 82), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/100, G/SPS/N/JPN/37, G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported):
224. In November 1998, the United States noted that the draft regulation proposed the addition of
27 pests to the list of non-quarantine pests in Japan's Plant Protection Law.  The United States,
although encouraged by certain aspects of Japan's proposal, continued to have concerns regarding the
basis and application of Japan's phytosanitary legislation.  The legislative amendments did not appear
to alter the current practice of requiring fumigation and other costly treatment for most non-quarantinepests, including those pests which were widespread in Japan and not subject to internal regulatory or
quarantine controls.  The United States urged Japan to take into consideration the IPPC definition of a
quarantine pest.  The European Communities asked Japan to explain the scientific rationale behind its
measure, and the risk assessment it was based on.  Japan replied that its definition of quarantine pests
complied with the IPPC definition.  The list of non- quarantine pests would be reviewed in the future
with a view to expansion.  Japan welcomed continued bilateral consultations on the matter.
225. In November 1999, the European Communities recalled its request for an explanation of the
Japanese measure, to which it had not received a reply.  Japan announced that the matter would be
pursued bilaterally.
226. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with
Japan.
88. Mexico – Import prohibition of milled rice
Raised by: Thailand
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 44), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.
69-70), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, para. 24), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,
paras. 17-18), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 14-16), March 1999
(G/SPS/R/14, para. 15), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 7), November 1999(G/SPS/R/17, para. 86), March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 26), June 2000
(G/SPS/R/19, paras. 22-23), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 23-25),
March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 46-47), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras.
112-113)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MEX/44, G/SPS/N/MEX/45, G/SPS/N/MEX/55,
G/SPS/N/MEX/153, G/SPS/N/MEX/172, G/SPS/GEN/82, G/SPS/GEN/105,
G/SPS/GEN/172, G/SPS/GEN/216
Solution (if reported): New measure notified in March 2000, problems remaining.
227. In October 1997, Thailand reported that Mexico prohibited importation of Thai milled rice
because of the fungus tilletia barclayana  (Kernel smut), although Mexican experts visiting Thailand
had concluded the fungus would be removed during milling, and although the fungus existed in
Mexico.  Mexico had informed Thailand that the prohibition would be replaced by a new regulation,
but despite high-level consultations no progress had been achieved.  Mexico assured the Committee
that the matter would be followed up.  In Ma rch 1998, Thailand indicated that it had received noG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 62
replies to its written communication to Mexico.  The Mexican delegate replied that he would convey
the information to his authorities, who were studying the matter.  Thailand expressed its
disappointment at the lack of progress again in June 1998, and Mexico stated that the issue was still
under consideration.  In September 1998, Mexico re ported on official contacts between the two
countries.  Mexico was conducting a risk assessment, but had not received the necessary information
from Thailand.
228. In November 1998, Thailand reported that it had proposed holding consultations with the
Chairman, but that Mexico had not agreed.  He stressed that there was no data demonstrating the risk
of transmission of the fungus tilletia barclayana  from Thai milled rice.  Mexico had requested
information on a different pest for its risk assessment, but Thailand did not see the connection
between the two issues, as this new pest was not listed in the regulation establishing the Mexican
quarantine measures.  Thailand was concerned that Mexico might request information on one pest
after another.  Mexico repeated that the requested information had not been provided.  Both countriesindicated consultations would continue.
229. In March 1999, Thailand indicated that although it had no obligation to do so, it was
providing the information requested by Mexico.  Mexico noted that its measures had been notified,
and the text of the measures provided to Thailand.  Mexico would review the latest information and
act accordingly.  In July 1999, Thailand reported that it had handed over additional documents toMexico.  Some progress had been made at bilateral consultations, where it had been clarified that
tilletia barclayana  was a quarantine disease only for seed imports, not with regard to rice imported for
consumption.  Mexico had also found no reports of the presence of the khapra beetle in Thailand, and
would thus modify its regulation which had listed Thailand as a country affected by this pest.
230. In November 1999, Mexico informed the Committee that the phytosanitary regulations were
being revised and would be published for comments.  Mexico had provided Thailand with the text of
the draft measures.  Thailand indicated it was looking forward to the publication of the final measure
and its notification to WTO.  In March 2000, Thailand noted that Mexico had taken new measures
replacing the ban, but these measures included unusual and unnecessary requirements such as
fumigation at point of entry.  Mexico invited Thailand to send official comments on the new draftregulation.
231. In June 2000, Thailand reported that bilateral consultations had taken place.  Thailand had
posed a list of questions regarding the measure notified in G/SPS/N/MEX/153.  Mexico explained that
the questions and comments from Thailand were being reviewed by the competent Mexican
authorities.  The sub-committee considering the matter would meet in July 2000, and responses toeach of the comments would be published in the Official Journal before the final standard was
published.
232. In November 2000, Thailand reported that although every effort had been made to find
resolution to this problem, the issue was still unresolved.  Thailand had not been informed of the
status of the matter since the meeting of the Mexican phytosanitary committee in July and August
2000, and was interested in the expected date of amendment of the relevant Mexican standard.
Mexico had no further information.
233. In March 2001, Thailand reported that during bilateral consultations, Mexico had indicated
that it had removed the prohibition on Thai milled rice, and that Thailand was no longer listed as a
country under quarantine against Khapra beetle.  Thailand requested that Mexico notify this
amendment to the SPS Committee.  Thailand was satisfied with the interim measure which allowed
for the importation of Thai rice upon request by importers.  However, Thailand was concerned thatthe final publication of the phytosanitary requirements had not yet been adopted, meaning that the
lifting of the ban could not be implemented on a permanent basis.  Thailand would pursue theG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 63
measure bilaterally with Mexico.  Mexico explained that the definitive publication of the measure in
the Official Journal had not yet been possible due to administrative procedures requiring legislation.
However, Mexico would issue phytosanitary certificates until the time of publication.  Imports had to
fulfill certain criteria, including international phytosanitary certificates, inspection at point of entry,
sampling for laboratory analysis and fumigation with methyl bromide.  Fumigation at place of origin
would only be accepted if the product was in plastic bags.
234. In October 2001, Thailand recalled that in March 2001 Mexico had announced that
restrictions against Thai milled rice had been lifted on condition that it underwent fumigation
treatment.  Despite this statement, notification G/SPS/N/MEX/172 showed that Thailand remained on
Mexico's list of countries affected by the Khapra beetle and subject to quarantine requirements.  In
subsequent bilateral consultations, Thailand had been informed that it would be removed from the list.
Mexico expressed surprise at Thailand's statement since as of March, Mexico had imported over
1,000 tonnes of Thai rice.  The product mentioned on the notification in question was not Thai rice.
89. New Zealand - Proposed import prohibition of commodity-country combinations of
fresh cut flowers and foliage
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by: Colombia
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 68-70)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/NZL/24, G/SPS/N/NZL/142
Solution (if reported):
235. The European Communities was concerned that according to the proposed measure, plants
not traded for two years might be subject to a prohibition, pending a new risk assessment.  This
practice was not in accordance with international standards, and was unnecessary and unjustified.Colombia expressed interest in participating in  bilateral exchanges and in receiving relevant
information.  New Zealand explained that in 1997 it had commenced a review of its import
requirements for cut flowers as imports were steadily growing.  New draft standards had been
approved and notified in 1998, and were being reviewed in light of the most up to date scientific data.
At an initial step the review included the suspension of historic phytosanitary requirements for some
countries.  New Zealand had notified its plan to further consolidate the approved country-commodity
schedules to include only those commodities that had actually been exported to New Zealand in thepast two years.  New Zealand would continue to  address the EC concerns on a bilateral basis.
90. Panama – Requirements for certification of consumer rice
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 15), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported): Import restrictions removed in 1997, concern resolved.
236. In March 1997, the United States noted that Panama required imports of consumer rice to be
certified free from the fungus tilletia barclayana  (Kernel smut), although this fungus already existed
in Panama.  Furthermore, the fungus in question could not be transmitted through milled rice.Panamanian officials had allegedly suggested that current domestic supply conditions had influenced
their decisions.  The representative of Panama replied that she would forward a report from capital to
the US Department of Agriculture.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 64
237. In July 2001, the United States indicated that Panama had removed its import restrictions on
rice in late 1997, and that the ma tter was resolved (G/SPS/GEN/265).
91. Phytosanitary issues in general
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 12)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported):
238. The United States noted that the mere existence of a plant disease or pest in traded
agricultural goods did not necessarily constitute a risk to the importing country if, for scientific
reasons, the pest or disease could not establish itself in the area into which it was being imported.
Likewise, if the disease or pest was already prevalent in the importing country, import controls were
unlikely to serve any significant health objective.  The United States urged Members to ensurecompliance with the principle of national treatment as well as other key provisions.
92. Poland – Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 13-14), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13,
para. 27), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported):
239. In March 1997, the United States questioned the phytosanitary health basis for Poland's
restrictions which applied to weed seeds that existed world-wide, some of them known to be
established in Poland.  Poland replied that the measure did not affect trade with the United States, as
no shipment of US grain or oilseeds had been rejected because of quarantine risks.  In November1998, the Chairman reported that he and the Secretariat had been requested to facilitate bilateral
consultations between the United States and Poland regarding tolerance levels for weed seed,
particularly of the genus Ambrosia .  These consultations had focussed on technical aspects of pest risk
analysis, and both parties had agreed to continue the discussions.
240. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with
Poland.
93. Slovak Republic – Restrictions on imports of apples, pears and quinces
Raised by: Hungary
Supported by: European Communities, Bulgaria
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 20-21), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 27-
30), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and Corr.1, paras. 31-34), October 2001
(G/SPS/R/25, para. 33)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SVK/8 and Rev.1, G/SPS/N/SVK/11, G/SPS/GEN/79
Solution (if reported): Hungary reported a mutually acceptable solution in October 2001.
241. In March 1998, Hungary indicated that although the Slovak Republic had made changes to its
measure on importation of apples, pears and quinces as notified, the certification and information
requirements were extremely burdensome.  The measure appeared to be more restrictive than requiredG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 65
to protect health, was not based on scientific principles and constituted a disguised restriction on
trade.  The Slovak Republic answered that the measure was intended for protection against the
introduction of fire blight (Erwinia amylovora), which did not occur in Slovakia.  The revised
measure, which extended import possibilities, was consistent with the SPS Agreement, but the Slovak
Republic remained open to bilateral discussions.
242. In June 1998, Hungary acknowledged improvements made by the Slovak Republic, but
stressed that the measure was not consistent with recommendations by the European and
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO).  The licensing system, which applied to each
consignment, remained too burdensome.  The Slovak Republic replied that it imported 35 per cent of
its apples, pears and quinces, which showed that there were no serious market access impediments.
Given the potential economic costs of introduction of the disease, and since available scientific
information was not sufficient, a precautionary approach was adopted in line with Article 5.7.  The
Slovak Republic was exchanging information with countries applying similar phytosanitary measures,and was ready to continue discussion with its trading partners.  In September 1998, Hungary again
acknowledged that the Slovak measure had been improved, although a partial ban still applied, for
which no scientific justification had been given.  The Slovak Republic reiterated its earlier arguments
that it had put in place a temporary measure according to Article 5.7.  In October 2001, Hungary
reported that a mutually acceptable solution had been found.
94. Slovak Republic – Import restrictions on potatoes
Raised by: European Communities, Poland
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, Hungary
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 22-23), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para.
21), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 65), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para.
84)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SVK/9, G/SPS/N/SVK/15, G/SPS/GEN/65, G/SPS/GEN/115,
G/SPS/GEN/159 and G/SPS/GEN/165
Solution (if reported): Measure revised in March 1999, problems persisting.
243. In March 1998, the European Communities pointed out that notification of the Slovak
measure on potatoes as an emergency measure did not appear to be justified, and that less trade-
restrictive measures could attain the required level of protection.  The Slovak Republic responded thatproblems seemed to stem from the registration procedure, rather than from the phytosanitary
requirements per se .  Slovak authorities were about to remove the current strict registration
requirements and establish a maximum residue level.
244. In March 1999, Poland reported that following bilateral consultations, the Slovak Republic
had lifted its earlier import ban on Polish ware potatoes, but that it had been replaced with testingrequirements for potato spindle tuber viroid.  Poland considered this requirement an unjustified
obstacle to trade since no comment period had been provided and since the imported potatoes were
treated to impede germination and were thus unlik ely to introduce diseases to crop plants.  The
representative of the Slovak Republic indicated he would transmit the Polish comments to his
authorities.  In July 1999, both delegations reported that consultations regarding potatoes and fruit,including apples, pears and quinces had taken place, and had been expanded to include Slovak exports
of cereals, maize and malt to Poland.  In November 1999, Poland informed the Committee on the
development of the issue.  The Slovak Republic thought it was more appropriate to discuss this matter
at the expert level.  The Slovak Republic stressed that it wanted to avoid importation of potato
bacterial diseases.  Import measures had been no tified (G/SPS/N/SVK/15), and were based on a pest
risk analysis.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 66
95. Switzerland - Notification on wheat, rye and triticale
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 32)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHE/5
Solution (if reported):
245. Argentina expressed concern with regard to rising trade barriers on wheat grain for industrial
and planting purposes.  Argentina was free from tilletia indica  (Karnal bunt).  Argentina requested a
full draft of the proposed Swiss measure notified as G/SPS/N/CHE/5, including access to the risk
analysis and other scientific documents which substantiated the proposal.  Switzerland assured
Argentina that the scientific basis for the notified measure would be provided as soon as possible.
96. Turkey - Restrictions on banana imports
Raised by: Ecuador
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  97-98), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 36-
38)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/249, G/SPS/GEN/275, G/SPS/GEN/276
Solution (if reported): Formal consultations requested by Ecuador on 10 September 2001 (DS237).
246. In March 2001, Ecuador indicated that Turkish authorities were issuing phytosanitary
certificates for a specific and limited volume of bananas only.  Ecuador believed that the controlcertificates were not only de facto  quantitative restrictions, but also imposed unnecessary and
unjustified administrative burdens.  Ecuador asked Turkey for a written response to a number of
questions submitted, and planned to pursue the matter bilaterally.  Turkey replied that due to resource
constraints, Turkey could not verify whole shipments at once.  Turkey had published all relevant
regulations, as well as testing and sampling methods.  These were the same for both domesticproducers and importers and in conformity with international standards.
247. In July 2001, Ecuador indicated that the replies received in response to its questions regarding
the "Kontrol Belgesi" certificates did not seem to correspond to the information provided by exporters
and importers.  Obtaining the certificates had taken up to three times as long as claimed by Turkey,
there were inconsistencies regarding the duration and validity of the certificates.  In the case ofbananas, the expiration dates regularly coincided with the beginning of Turkey's banana harvest.  In
addition, the certificates were granted for a maximum of one thousand tons, and thus acted as
quantitative restrictions.  Turkey claimed that one could obtain several certificates, but exporters
indicated that one had to use one certificate before a new one was granted.  Turkey replied that the
certificate was a reference document used in customs proceedings and food safety analysis during theimportation process.  The system was described in the Official Gazette, and was not used to limit
quantities.  Issuance of the certificates took betw een three and seven working days if the information
was complete, and the validation period was between four and twelve months.  Turkey was ready to
discuss the issue bilaterally.  Chile and Colombia requested to be informed of future developments of
the issue.  The European Communities requested to see Turkey's responses to Ecuador's questions.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 67
97. United States - Import restrictions on potted plants from the European Communities
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 30-31)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported):
248. The European Communities indicated that exports of plants in growing medium had been
impeded for over 20 years because the United States conducted a pest risk assessment for each type ofplant before allowing imports, and each assessment took several years to complete.  In addition, the
requirements for accepted species were very rigid and not proportional to the potential risk.  The
European Communities requested the United States to adjust its import requirements and
administrative procedures to allow for market access.  The United States replied that its requirements
reflected the need to avoid introduction of pests and diseases that could seriously undermine nativeecosystems as well as cultivated plants.  The roots of potted plants, even in an approved medium,
could not be examined for signs of disease, and other mitigation measures were necessary.  The
United States was preparing a technical proposal for review by the Commission and EC member
States, and had proposed the formation of a joint technical working group to address the issue.
USDA was willing to review any systems certification proposal submitted by the Commission or itsmember States, with the understanding that any m odifications to existing US regulations would have
to be scientifically justified and be subject to the US rulemaking process.
98. United States – Imports of citrus fruit
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 89), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, para. 10),
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 94-96)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported): Favourable conclusion reported in June 2000.  New concerns raised in
October 2001.
249. In November 1999, Argentina expressed concerns regarding the postponement of US
measures dealing with imports of citrus fruit from north-western Argentina.  Negotiation of themeasure had taken seven years and been finalized one year earlier.  Argentina appealed to the United
States to publish the measure before another harvest was lost for Argentine producers.  The
representative of the United States answered that the draft measures had passed the technical level and
promised to draw the attention of his authorities to Argentina's concerns.
250. In June 2000, Argentina reported that after years of negotiations with the United States
regarding citrus produced in north-west Argentina, a favourable conclusion had been reached.
251. In July 2001, Argentina expressed concerns related to a California court decision to overturn a
USDA/APHIS risk assessment which had allowed the import of lemons, oranges and grapefruits from
north western Argentina starting June 2000.  In  Argentina's opinion, the judge's reasoning went
beyond the terms of the SPS Agreement.  As imports from other destination were not subject to zerorisk, Argentina felt this amounted to discrimination.   In addition the judge had ruled that APHIS had
not measured the economic impact of imports on producers in the United States, an economic test
inadmissible under the SPS Agreement.  Argentina requested US authorities to ensure compliance
with the SPS Agreement by bodies other than the central government, according to Article 13.  The
United States confirmed that no problems had been reported during the two seasons that ArgentinaG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 68
had had access to the US market for citrus.  US regulations were subject to judicial review and had
been challenged through a District Court in California.  Although the Federal Government had
disputed the case, the Court had ruled in favour of the complainant in September 2001.  The United
States indicated that the executive branch agencies were consulting about how to proceed and would
take Argentina's comments into account.
99. United States – Import restrictions on rhododendrons in growing medium
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 66), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 83),
March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 68)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/121
Solution (if reported): Final rule published in December 1999, importation allowed under certain
conditions.
252. In March 1999, the European Communities indicated that delays in the publication of a final
rule on the importation of rhododendrons were resulting in de facto restrictions on EC exports.  The
representative of the European Communities asked for information on the status of the pest risk
analysis and of the final rule.  The United States replied that the final rule for the importation of
rhododendrons in growing medium from the EC had been completed pending final review, and would
be published within one month after the meeting.  The European Communities requested an update on
the status of the rule in November 1999, and the Unit ed States answered that it would be published in
the near future.  In March 2000, the United States informed the Committee that the final rule had been
published on 30 December 1999, allowing the importation of rhododendrons under conditions
designed to prevent the introduction of pests.
100. United States – Interim rule affecting solid wood packaging material
Raised by: none; Hong Kong, China is affected
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 3-12), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14,
paras. 2-3), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 35)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/107, G/SPS/N/USA/137, G/SPS/N/CAN/44
Solution (if reported):
253. In November 1998, the United States provided information on an amendment of the
regulations applicable to unmanufactured wood, adding treatment and documentation requirements
for imports from China, including Hong Kong, China.   Hong Kong, China found the rule arbitrary and
discriminatory.  Although Hong Kong, China recognized that fumigation with methyl bromide was
effective, it was concerned that the use of this substance had undesirable side-effects on human healthand the environment.  Bilateral consultations with the United States had taken place.  The United
States encouraged Members to comment on its draft measure.  Canada indicated that it had also
imposed a measure on unmanufactured wood imports from China to avoid introduction of the Asian
Longhorned Beetle.  A technical expert would be sent to Hong Kong, China to study ways to
implement this measure with a minimal disruption of international trade.  In March 1999, the UnitedStates announced that an advance notice of proposed rule making had been published on 20 January
1999, and that comments were welcome until 22 March 1999.  The European Communities indicated
that it had been monitoring similar problems, and would provide more information at a later date.  In
October 2001, Hong Kong, China reported that no new developments had occurred.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 69
101. United States - Actions taken by local governments
Raised by: Chile
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev. 1, para. 47)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution (if reported):
254. Chile noted that legal actions taken by local governments could disrupt trade flows.  For
example, Californian judges had requested the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to undertake
an environmental analysis before allowing imports. In another instance, after Chilean phytosanitary
authorities had taken a decision regarding the entry of  weeds, they were threatened to be subject to
legal proceedings initiated by the exporting country, unless the exporting country was declared a
"low-risk" or a "zero-risk" country.  Another related issue concerned the need for the streamlining or
reform of national regulatory frameworks.  As many as five signatures were sometimes required toclear the entry of goods into a territory.
102. Venezuela - Phytosanitary requirements for garlic and potato imports
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  26-28), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 131),
October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 99-100)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
255. In March 2001, Argentina provided information on Venezuela's import restrictions on
Argentine garlic because of Lurocystis cepulae that had been imposed since 1997.  According to the
terms of the Andean Pact no quarantine measures had been adopted against Argentina.  Regarding
potatoes, Argentina had begun efforts to gain access to the Venezuelan market in 1996, and hadprovided the necessary information for a risk assessment.  Argentina expressed concern at the
seeming lack of will on the part of Venezuela to make progress on both issues.  In addition, Argentina
was concerned about a lack of coherence in the application of resolution 431 of the mandatory
sanitary and phytosanitary standards of the Andean  Community, which it would raise with the Andean
Community.  Venezuela explained that there was no lack of will to move forward on these issues.Regarding garlic, the administrative process to set up the necessary protocols was ongoing.  With
respect to potatoes, Venezuela believed that Argentine and Andean Community phytosanitary
standards were not compatible.   Colombia requested Argentina to submit its concerns to the Andean
Community.
256. In July 2001, Argentina informed the Committee that bilateral meetings had been held, and
although the problem had not been completely solved, Venezuela had demonstrated a will to find a
solution.  In October 2001, Argentina requested a technical reply from Venezuela to the questions
raised during a recent bilateral meeting on the sanitary restrictions on potato imports, so as to facilitate
the start of trading in this product.  Venezuela replied that it was seeking to prevent the introduction of
pests that existed in Argentina but were exotic to Venezuela.  The sanitary services were evaluatingthe appropriateness of alternative methods, such as pest free areas, that would meet Argentina's
legitimate trade concerns and Venezuela's appropriate level of protection.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 70
IV. OTHER CONCERNS
103. European Communities - Agricultur al biotechnology approval processes
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Canada
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 102-105)
Relevant document(s): raised orally
Solution (if reported):
257. The United States expressed concern regarding the lack of a functioning approval process in
the European Communities for agricultural biotechnology products.  Since 1998, a de facto
moratorium on approval of biotechnology products had been in place.  The United Stated believed
that under the SPS Agreement the European Communities was obligated to have a functioning
approval process and decisions on pending applicat ions should not be delayed.  The United States
urged the European Commission to restart the approval process as soon as possible.  Canada wasconcerned that the European Communities was fundamentally altering the regulation of agriculture
and food products to discriminate on the basis of how a product was produced rather than the
product's characteristics.  Canada also considered proposed new EC regulations to be arbitrary, as
they required labelling for highly refined products, such as oil that did not contain detectable DNA or
protein, while not requiring similar controls on products that could present equal risk but wereproduced with other methods of development such as  mutation breeding or mutagenesis.  Moreover,
the proposed regulations discriminated against products produced from genetically modified products,
but not against products produced with genetically modified organisms such as cheese and wine.
Canada argued that the proposed regulations were not commensurate with the risks and lacked
scientific basis.  Furthermore, the proposed regulations were fundamentally unworkable, asdemonstrated by the one per cent threshold for the adventitious presence of GMOs.
258. The European Commission reaffirmed its interest and positive actions aimed at allowing the
authorization procedures to continue.  The recent meeting of the European Environment Council had
started a very important discussion on proposals presented by the Commission to restart the
authorization procedure.
104. Korea – Import clearance measures and practices
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Several delegations
Dates raised: June 1995 (G/SPS/R/2, paras. 39-40), May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, paras. 4-5),
October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, para. 54),  March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 54),
July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 77), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras.
42-43), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/W/64, G/SPS/W/66, G/SPS/GN/6, G/SPS/GEN/265
Solution (if reported): Consultations under Dispute Settlement initiated (WT/DS3, WT/DS41);
mutually satisfactory solution found.
259. In June 1995, the United States informed the Committee that it had held formal consultations
with Korea regarding its inspecti on and testing methods.  Korea indicated that although consultations
had been productive, there was a high degree of ambiguity in the implementation of the Agreement.
The parties had noted the lack of international st andards in the area, and countries maintained very
diverse practices.  In May 1996, the United States expressed serious concern regarding Korea's import
clearance measures and practices, which were not based on science, did not conform to internationalG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.2
Page 71
practice or standards, and were deliberately employed to discourage food and agricultural imports.
The United States had submitted a formal request for consultations.  Korea replied that these issues
had been discussed extensively in a series of bilateral consultations with the United States and other
countries.  Korea had taken various measures to comply with the SPS Agreement, but encountered
problems common to developing countries: a low level of sanitary infrastructure, lack of experience
and information, and lack of relevant international standards.  However, Korea would continue toadapt its measures to the SPS Agreement.
260. In October 1996, the United States reported on ongoing discussions with Korea.  The United
States expected reforms to shorten the import clearance process in Korea without additional
burdensome requirements, with a period for comments by WTO Members.  Korea answered that an
ambitious reform programme had been launched the previous year, including the establishment of an
advanced inspection and quarantine system by the end of 1996.  In March 1997, the United States
noted that consultations continued.  Although Korea had implemented some changes, concernsremained.  Korea indicated that it would continue its efforts to conform its sanitary and phytosanitary
legislation to the SPS Agreement.
261. In July 1997, the United States reported that after five rounds of consultations under the WTO
dispute settlement procedure, some Korean import clearance laws and regulations had been reformed.
However, since January new problems had arisen.  The United States would continue to address theseconcerns in bilateral consultations until clearan ce times in Korean ports were similar to those in
similar ports.  Korea took note of the US comments.  In October 1997, the United States noted that
although some progress had been made, there seemed to be problems with the implementation of
certain changes Korea had agreed to make.  The representative of Korea indicated that in his view the
new import clearance system was in full compliance with the SPS Agreement, however, the USconcerns would be conveyed to the competent authorities in the capital.
262. In July 2001, the United States indicated that bilateral consultations initiated under the dispute
settlement framework resulted in a mutually satisfactory and positive outcome (G/SPS/GEN/265).
The United States considered this trade concern resolved.
105. Japan and Korea - Translation of regulations
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by: Thailand
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, para. 26)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/1, G/SPS/N/KOR/29, G/SPS/N/KOR/20, G/SPS/N/KOR/31
Solution (if reported):
263. Argentina regretted that the regulations notified by Japan and Korea were not available in one
of the three WTO working languages.  The Chairman recalled that Annex B, paragraph 8 of the SPSAgreement requires developed country Members to "provide copies of the documents or, in case of
voluminous documents, summaries of the documents covered by a specific notification in English,
French or Spanish", if there is a specific request from another Member.  Japan observed that it
normally provided summaries of the documents in English.  Thailand suggested that countries give
sufficient detail in the description of content of their notifications to enable relevant comments by
recipient Members.
__________