WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
26 March 2003
(03-1733)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS
Note by the Secretariat1
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 since 1995.2  The SPS Committee requested the Secretariat to update this document annually
and it was revised in 2001 and 2002 to include new information provided by Members
(G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1 and Rev.2).  This third  revision includes all issues which have been raised at
SPS Committee meetings through the twenty-fifth regular meeting of the Committee on7-8 November 2002.
The presentation of the specific concerns raised has been changed in this third revision of the
document.  The document is organized alphabetically by Member, listing first the concerns raised
related to measures maintained by a certain Member, and then providing a summary table of specifictrade concerns raised by that Member.  The docum ent is no longer divided into sections on food
safety, animal and plant health, although the category is identified for each item.
Altogether, 154 specific trade concerns were ra ised in the eight years from 1995 to the end of
2002.  As Figure 1 shows, the number of new concerns raised each year has tended to increase over
time, with the exception of 1999 and 2000.  Figure 2a  shows trade concerns by subject.  Overall, 26
per cent of trade concerns relate to food safety concerns, 30 per cent relate to plant health, and 4 percent concern other issues such as certification requirements or translation.  40 per cent of concerns
raised relate to animal health and zoonoses, but this category includes issues such as transmissible
spongiform encephalopathy (TSEs) that are also relevant for food safety.  Figure 2b shows that TSEs
account for 42 per cent of animal health concerns, while issues related to foot-and-mouth disease
account for 27 per cent.
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.
2 G/SPS/R/18, para. 20.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page ii
Figure 1 - Number of New Issues Raised
051015202530354045
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 2a - Trade Concerns by Subject 
Food Safety
26%
Plant Health
30%
Animal Health 
and Zoonoses
40%Other Concerns
4%
Figure 2b - Trade Concerns Related to Animal Health
TSEs
42%
FMD
27%Other Animal 
Health
31%G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page iii
Developing countries are participating actively under this agenda item in SPS Committee
meetings.  As Figure 3 shows, developing country Members have raised 77 trade concerns, compared
to 110 raised by developed country Members and two raised by least-developed country Members.3
In 98 cases, a developing country Member has supported another Member raising an issue, comparedto 76 for developed country Members and zero for least-developed country Members.  In 98 cases, themeasure at issue was maintained by a developed country Member, and in 76 cases it was maintained
by a developing country Member.  No trade concerns regarding measures maintained by least-
developed country Members have been raised.
Figure 3 - Participati on of Developing Countries
020406080100120140160180200
Members Raising the
IssueSupporting Members Member Maintaining
the Measure in
Question
Developed countries Developed countries Developed countriesDeveloping countries
Developing countries Developing countriesLeast-developed countries
As Figure 4 shows, out of the 154 trade concerns raised, only 28 solutions have been reported.
In 14 cases, the Committee was informed that a partial solution had been found, although somedifficulties persisted.  For example, trade may have been allowed for a limited number of products, or
by only some of the importing Members maintaining the measures identified in a particular concern.
For 112 concerns, no solution had been reported.   Not counting the 48 new issues raised in 2002, for
which it may be too soon to expect a solution, there are 70 trade concerns that are at least a year old
and for which no solution has been reported.  Of course, some of these concerns may have beensolved without Members having so informed the Committee.  Table 1 lists the issues that were raised
for the first time in 2002, and Table 2 shows other items that were considered during 2002.
                                                     
3 The European Communities was counted as one Member.  Similarly, when one Member spoke on
behalf of ASEAN, it was counted as one Member only.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page iv
Figure 4 - Solved Trade Concerns
020406080100120
Solution reported Partial solution
reportedNo solution reportedTable 1 - Issues raised for the first time in 2002
Item
#Title Item
#Title
1 BSE related measures 87 Import restrictions on dairy products
6 Pest risk assessment requirements 93 Regulation on food additives
9 Restriction on pigmeat 94 Amendment of the food sanitation law
17 FMD trade restrictions 97 Official control restrictions on citrus and
other fresh fruits and vegetables
20 Imports of live ostriches 113 Restrictions on food products
21 Pest risk assessments for imports of plant
origin115 Import licences for agricultural products
22 Import requirements for seed potatoes 116 Certification of meat and dairy products
30 Pet food import requirements 117 Notification on Chinese fruit imports
33 Food safety regulations affecting
agricultural products produced from
modern biotechnology121 SPS measures on animal products
34 Zero tolerance for e-coli 125 Restrictions on beef and pork
35 Import ban on products of Dutch origin 128 Policies regarding quarantine and non-
quarantine pests
36 Import requirements for cosmetics 129 Restrictions on imports of pork sausages
and other pork products, fresh, cured or
salted
37 Regulation on wood packaging material 133 Restrictions on melons
38 Import restrictions for citrus and other
fruits related to fruit fly135 Import restrictions on meat and meat
products
39 FMD restrictions 137 Restrictions on pigmeatG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page v
Item
#Title Item
#Title
40 Import restrictions on spiced pork and
salted meat products139 Restrictions on imports of Chinese potted
plants in growing medium
47 Restrictions on shellfish 142 Imports of clementines
48 Pesticide and antibiotic limits in honey 146 Risk assessment on BSE
50 Traceability and labelling of genetically
modified organisms and food and feed147 FMD restrictions
60 Restrictions on the importation of fruits
and fruit juices151 Restrictions on imports of potatoes, fresh
mushrooms, fresh tomatoes, fertilised
eggs, day-old chicks and meat products
79 Import restrictions on chicken meat
imports153 Notifications related to Avian Influenza
86 Ban on hormones in animal production
Table 2 - Other items considered during 2002
Item
#Title Item
#Title
10 Import restrictions on prawn and prawn
products78 Agricultural biotechnology approval
process
11 Quarantine requirements for chicken meat 95 Restrictions on importation of sugar cane
top from Indonesia
13 Access of California table grapes 96 Measures regarding FMD
15 Import restrictions on durian 98 Import measures on fire blight
31 FMD restrictions 109 Import prohibition of milled rice
49 Regulations on genetically modified food
and feed110 Proposed import prohibition of
commodity-country combinations offresh cut flowers and foliage
53 Import restrictions on soy sauce 119 Notifications on veterinary measures and
measures on animal products includinggelatin
58 Maximum levels for certain contaminants
(aflatoxins) in foodstuffs130 Ban on pet food imports
61 Measures regarding canned tuna oil 150 Phytosanitary requirements for potatoes,
garlic and onions
65 Restrictions on the use of fishmeal 152 FMD-related import restrictions
77 Phytosanitary regulationsG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ARGENTI NA ...................................................................................................................... ...................1
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA ...........................................1
Animal Health and Zoonoses .........................................................................................................1
1. BSE related measures......................................................................................................... ....1
2. (and Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States) - Import restrictions
affecting BSE-fr ee countries ..................................................................................................2
3. Import restrictions on bovine semen, milk and milk pr oducts ...............................................3
4. (and Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France,
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Ro mania, Singapore, Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Spain, United States and ot hers) – Measures related to BSE .................................4
5. Temporary prohibition of fresh pork a nd products ................................................................6
Other Concerns ............................................................................................................................... 7
6. Pest risk assessme nt requir ements..........................................................................................7
CONCERNS RAISED BY ARGENTINA ...............................................................................................7
AUSTRAL IA...................................................................................................................... ....................9
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA ............................................9
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .......9
7. Restrictions on imports of sa uces containing benzoic acid ....................................................9
8. (and New Zealand) – Import restrictions on cheese...............................................................9Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................10
2. (and Argentina, Canada, Korea, New Zeal and, United States) - Import restrictions
affecting BSE-fr ee countries ..................................................................................................2
4. (and Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France,
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Ro mania, Singapore, Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Spain, United States and ot hers) – Measures re lated to BSE .................................4
9. Restriction on pigmeat....................................................................................................... ...10
10. Import restrictions on pr awn and prawn products................................................................11
11. Notification G/SPS/N/AUS/72 on quarantine requirements for chicken meat.....................12
12. Ban on salm on impor ts....................................................................................................... ..13
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....13
13. Access of Californ ia table grapes.........................................................................................13
14. Notification on me thyl bromide ...........................................................................................14
15. Import restricti ons on durian ............................................................................................... .15
16. Restrictions on imports of  tropical fr esh fruit ......................................................................16
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY AUSTRALIA ..............................................................................................16G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page vii
BOLIVIA ........................................................................................................................ ......................17
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA ...............................................17
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................17
17. FMD trade re strictions...................................................................................................... ....17
18. Restrictions on pou ltry meat imports ...................................................................................17
CONCERNS RAISED BY BOLIVIA ...................................................................................................18
BRAZIL ......................................................................................................................... .......................18
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL .................................................18
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....18
19. Import requireme nts for wine...............................................................................................1 8
Animal Health and Zoonoses .........................................................................................................4
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic,
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, SlovakRepublic, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE.................4
Other Animal Health Concerns ...................................................................................................19
20. Imports of live ostriches ................................................................................................... ....19
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....19
21. Pest risk assessments for imports of pl ant orig in .................................................................19
22. Import requirements fo r seed potatoes .................................................................................20
23. Import prohibition of coconut palms and relate d products...................................................21
24. Restrictions on imported wheat............................................................................................21
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY BRAZIL .....................................................................................................22
BULGARIA....................................................................................................................... ...................22
CONCERNS RAISED BY BULGARIA ................................................................................................22
CANADA ......................................................................................................................... .....................22
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA ...............................................22
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....22
25. Importation of cheese ....................................................................................................... ....22
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................23
2. (and Argentina, Australia, Korea, New Zealand, United States) - Import
restrictions affectin g BSE-free countries................................................................................2
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Czech Republic,
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, SlovakRepublic, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE.................4
26. Measures affecting imports of pr oducts containing Brazilian beef......................................23
27. Zoosanitary import policies  pertaining to BSE ....................................................................23
28. (and the United States) - Impor t restrictions due to FMD....................................................24
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY CANADA ...................................................................................................24G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page viii
CHILE.......................................................................................................................... .........................25
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE ...................................................25
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....25
29. (and Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Slovak Republic) – Zero-tolerance
for salmonella  in imported poult ry products ........................................................................25
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................26
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic,
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE.................4
30. Pet food import requirements ...............................................................................................2 6
31. FMD restrictions............................................................................................................ .......26
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....27
32. Restrictions on imports  of wheat and fruit ...........................................................................27
CONCERNS RAISED BY CHILE .......................................................................................................28
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... ........................28
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA ..................................................28
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....28
33. Food safety regulations affecting agricultural products produced from modern
biotechnology .................................................................................................................. .....28
34. Zero toleran ce for e- coli ................................................................................................... ....29
35. Import ban on products  of Dutch origin ...............................................................................29
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................30
36. Import requirements for cosme tics.......................................................................................30
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....31
37. Regulation on wood p ackaging ma terial ..............................................................................31
38. Import restrictions for citrus and ot her fruits related to fruit fly ..........................................31
CONCERNS RAISED BY CHINA ......................................................................................................32
COLOMBIA....................................................................................................................... ..................32
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA ...........................................32
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................32
39. FMD restrictions............................................................................................................ .......32
CONCERNS RAISED BY COLOMBIA ...............................................................................................33
COSTA RICA..................................................................................................................... ..................33
CONCERNS RAISED BY COSTA RICA............................................................................................33
CÔTE D'IV OIRE.................................................................................................................. ...............34
CONCERNS RAISED BY CÔTE  D' I VOIRE .....................................................................................34
CROATIA........................................................................................................................ .....................34
CONCERNS RAISED BY CROATIA ..................................................................................................34G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page ix
CUBA ........................................................................................................................... .........................34
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA....................................................34
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................34
40. Import restrictions on spiced pork and salted m eat products ...............................................34
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....35
41. Restrictions on apples and pears...........................................................................................3 5
CONCERNS RAISED BY CUBA........................................................................................................35
CZECH REPUBLIC................................................................................................................. ...........35
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC ...............................35
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....35
29. (and Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Slovak Republic) – Zero-tolerance for
salmonella  in imported pou ltry products..............................................................................25
42. Prohibition of poultry meat  imports from  Thailand .............................................................35
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................36
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France,
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Ro mania, Singapore, Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Spain, United States and ot hers) – Measures re lated to BSE .................................4
43. Regulation concerning warehouses a nd silos .......................................................................36
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....36
44. Imports of potatoes......................................................................................................... ......36
CONCERNS RAISED BY CZECH REPUBLIC ...................................................................................37
ECUADO R ........................................................................................................................ ...................37
CONCERNS RAISED BY ECUADOR .................................................................................................37
EGYPT.......................................................................................................................... ........................37
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EGYPT ..................................................37
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....37
45. Restrictions on canned tuna................................................................................................. .37
CONCERNS RAISED BY EGYPT ......................................................................................................38
EL SAL VADOR .................................................................................................................... ...............38
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR .....................................38
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....25
29. (and Chile, Czech Republic, Honduras, Slovak Republic) – Zero-tolerance for
salmonella  in imported pou ltry products..............................................................................25
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................38
46. Restrictions on meat  and dairy products ..............................................................................38
ESTONIA ........................................................................................................................ .....................38
CONCERNS RAISED BY ESTONIA ..................................................................................................38G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page x
EUROPEAN COMM UNITIES ..........................................................................................................3 9
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .................39
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....39
47. Restrictions on shellfish ................................................................................................... ....39
48. Pesticide and antibiotic limits  in honey (Directive 96/23) ...................................................39
49. Regulations on genetically modified food  and feed .............................................................40
50. Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/150 on traceability and labelling of  genetically
modified organisms and food and feed ................................................................................41
51. Directive 2000/42 on pesticide re sidues...............................................................................43
52. Legislation on the fungicid e thiabendazole (TBZ)...............................................................43
53. Import restrictions  on soy sauce...........................................................................................4 4
54. Information on dioxin....................................................................................................... ....45
55. Measures on food treated wi th ionizing radiation ................................................................46
56. Emergency measures  on citrus pulp.....................................................................................46
57. Measure on establishments operatin g in the animal feed sector...........................................47
58. Maximum levels for certain contamin ants (aflatoxins) in foodstuffs...................................48
59. Trade restrictions in response to cholera ..............................................................................50
60. Restrictions on the importation of fruits and fruit ju ices......................................................51
61. Belgium - Measures regard ing canned tuna in oil................................................................52
62. Spain – Restriction on levels of c opper and cadmium in  imported squid ............................52
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................53
4. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain (and Argentina,
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech  Republic, Poland, Romania, Singapore,
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE................4
63. Transitional TSE measures................................................................................................... 53
64. Geographical BSE risk assessment ......................................................................................53
65. Restrictions on th e use of fi shmeal.......................................................................................54
66. Cosmetics and  BSE .......................................................................................................... ...55
67. Rules on "specified risk materials"  in products of animal or igin .........................................56
68. Gelatin impor ts............................................................................................................. ........57
69. France – Certification re quirements for pet food .................................................................58
70. Ban on antibiotics in feed.................................................................................................. ...59
71. Salmonella-related restrict ion on fishm eal impor ts..............................................................59
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....60
72. Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/131 regarding cut flowers ........................................................60
73. Measures on imports of  Egyptian po tatoes ..........................................................................60
74. G/SPS/N/EEC/93 on wood packing material .......................................................................61G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page xi
75. Citrus canker............................................................................................................... ..........61
76. Protected zones............................................................................................................. ........62
77. Spain - Phytosanitary regulations.........................................................................................62
Other Concerns .............................................................................................................................63
78. Agricultural biotechnolo gy approval process.......................................................................63
CONCERNS RAISED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .....................................................................65
THE GAMBIA ..................................................................................................................... ................66
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE GAMBIA ............................................................................................66
HONDURAS ....................................................................................................................... ..................66
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS ...........................................66
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....25
29. (and Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Slovak Republic) – Zero-tolerance for
salmonella  in imported pou ltry products..............................................................................25
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................66
79. Import restrictions on chicken meat  imports ........................................................................66
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....67
80. Restrictions on impor ts of roug h rice ...................................................................................67
HUNG ARY........................................................................................................................ ...................68
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HUNGARY ............................................68
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................68
81. Restrictions on bovine products ...........................................................................................68
82. Restrictions on  pork products.............................................................................................. 68
CONCERNS RAISED BY HUNGARY ................................................................................................69
ICEL AND ........................................................................................................................ .....................69
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ICELAND ..............................................69
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....69
83. Notification on meat and meat products...............................................................................69
INDIA.......................................................................................................................... ..........................70
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA ....................................................70
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................70
84. Import restrictions on bovine semen ....................................................................................70
85. Restrictions on im ports of horses .........................................................................................71
CONCERNS RAISED BY INDIA ........................................................................................................71
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ...................72
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA ...........................................72
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....72
86. Ban on hormones in animal pr oduction................................................................................72G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page xii
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................73
87. Import restrictions on dairy products ...................................................................................73
88. FMD restrictions............................................................................................................ .......73
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....74
89. Restrictions on importa tion of fresh fruit .............................................................................74
90. Fresh fruit and vegetables.................................................................................................. ...74
CONCERNS RAISED BY INDONESIA ...............................................................................................75
ISRAEL......................................................................................................................... ........................75
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL .................................................75
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................75
91. Notification G/SPS/N/ISR/2 on TSE-relate d import restrictions  of live cattle ....................75
92. Measures affecting im ports of bov ine meat .........................................................................76
CONCERNS RAISED BY ISRAEL .....................................................................................................76
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ........................76
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN ...................................................76
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....76
93. Regulation on food additives................................................................................................ 76
94. Amendment of the fo od sanitation law ................................................................................77
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................77
95. Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top from Indonesia.............................................77
96. Measures rega rding FMD.....................................................................................................7 8
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....79
97. Official control restrictions on citrus  and other fresh fru its and vegetables.........................79
98. Import measures on fire blight .............................................................................................8 0
99. Testing requirements for different varie ties of apples, cherries and nectarines ...................81
100. Plant quarantin e regulations ............................................................................................... ..81
101. Amendment of the Japanese  Plant Protec tion Law ..............................................................82
Other Concerns .............................................................................................................................82
102. (and Korea) - Translat ion of regulations ..............................................................................82
REPUBLIC OF  KOREA.............................................................................................................. .......83
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA ..................83
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....83
103. Import ban on frozen poultry............................................................................................... .83
104. Shelf-life re quirements .................................................................................................... .....84
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................85
2. (and Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States) - Import
restrictions affectin g BSE-free countries................................................................................2G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page xiii
105. Import restrict ions on beef................................................................................................ ....85
Other Concerns .............................................................................................................................85
102. (and Japan) - Translat ion of regulations...............................................................................82
106. Import clearance measur es and practices .............................................................................85
LATVIA......................................................................................................................... .......................86
CONCERNS RAISED BY LATVIA ....................................................................................................86
MALAYSIA....................................................................................................................... ...................86
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA ...........................................86
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....86
107. (and Singapore) - Notifica tions related to dioxin .................................................................86
CONCERNS RAISED BY MALAYSIA ...............................................................................................87
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ......................87
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO ...............................................87
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................87
108. Import restrict ions on beef................................................................................................ ....87
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....88
109. Import prohibition of milled rice.......................................................................................... 88
CONCERNS RAISED BY MEXICO ...................................................................................................90
MOLDOVA ........................................................................................................................ ..................90
CONCERNS RAISED BY MOLDOVA ................................................................................................90
NEW ZE ALAND .................................................................................................................... .............90
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND ....................................90
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .......9
8. (and Australia) – Import re strictions on  cheese......................................................................9
Animal Health and Zoonoses .........................................................................................................2
2. (and Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, United States) - Import restrictions
affecting BSE-fr ee countries ..................................................................................................2
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....90
110. Proposed import prohibition of commodity-country combinations of fresh cut
flowers and foliage ............................................................................................................ ...90
CONCERNS RAISED BY NEW ZEALAND ........................................................................................91
NORWAY......................................................................................................................... ....................91
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .................91
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................91
111. Restrictions on  gelatin imports............................................................................................ .91G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page xiv
PANAMA......................................................................................................................... .....................92
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA ...............................................92
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....92
112. Restrictions on m ilk powder imports ...................................................................................92
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................92
113. Restrictions on food products.............................................................................................. .92
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....93
114. Requirements for certificat ion of consumer rice ..................................................................93
Other Concerns .............................................................................................................................93
115. Import licenses for agri cultural products..............................................................................93
PERU........................................................................................................................... ..........................93
CONCERNS RAISED BY PERU ........................................................................................................93
PHILIPPINES.................................................................................................................... ..................94
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE PHILIPPINES .................................94
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....94
116. Certification of meat  and dairy products ..............................................................................94
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....94
117. Notification on Chin ese fruit imports ...................................................................................94
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE PHILIPPINES .....................................................................................95
POLAND......................................................................................................................... ......................95
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND ................................................95
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....95
118. Requirements for imports of  milk and m ilk products...........................................................95
Animal Health and Zoonoses .......................................................................................................96
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Neth erlands, Romania, Singapore, Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE.................4
119. Notifications on veterinary measures and measures on animal products including
gelatin ........................................................................................................................ ...........96
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....97
120. Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds.......................................................................................97
CONCERNS RAISED BY POLAND ...................................................................................................97
ROMANIA ........................................................................................................................ ...................98
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA .............................................98
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....98
121. SPS measures on animal products........................................................................................98G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page xv
Animal Health and Zoonoses .........................................................................................................4
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE.................4
CONCERNS RAISED BY ROMANIA .................................................................................................98
SENEGAL ........................................................................................................................ ....................98
CONCERNS RAISED BY SENEGAL ..................................................................................................98
SINGAP ORE...................................................................................................................... ..................86
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....86
107. (and Malaysia) - Notificatio ns related to  dioxin...................................................................86
Animal Health and Zoonoses .........................................................................................................4
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, SlovakRepublic, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE.................4
SLOVAK REPUBLIC................................................................................................................ .........99
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC ......................99
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... .....25
29. (and Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras) – Zero-tolerance for
salmonella  in imported pou ltry products..............................................................................25
Animal Health and Zoonoses .........................................................................................................4
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore,
Slovenia, Spain, United States and ot hers) – Measures re lated to BSE .................................4
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ....99
122. Restrictions on imports of  apples, pears and quinces...........................................................99
123. Import restricti ons on potatoes ............................................................................................ .99
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC ........................................................................100
SLOVENIA....................................................................................................................... ..................100
Animal Health and Zoonoses .........................................................................................................4
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore,
Slovak Republic, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE.....................4
CONCERNS RAISED BY SLOVENIA ..............................................................................................100
SOUTH AFRICA................................................................................................................... ............101
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA ..................................101
Animal Health and Zoonoses .....................................................................................................101
124. Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from member States of the European
Communities .................................................................................................................... ..101
125. Restrictions on beef and pork.............................................................................................1 01G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page xvi
SWITZERLAND.................................................................................................................... ............102
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SWITZERLAND ...................................102
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ...102
126. Notifications regarding import re quirements on m eat and eggs.........................................102
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ..103
127. Notification on wheat,  rye and tr iticale ..............................................................................103
CONCERNS RAISED BY SWITZERLAND .......................................................................................103
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND
MATSU (CHINESE  TAIPEI)......................................................................................................... ..103
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI ................................103
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ..103
128. Policies  regarding quaran tine and non-quaran tine pest s ...................................................103
TANZANIA ....................................................................................................................... .................104
CONCERNS RAISED BY TANZANIA ..............................................................................................104
THAIL AND....................................................................................................................... .................104
CONCERNS RAISED BY THAILAND ..............................................................................................104
TRINIDAD AND TOBA GO ............................................................................................................ .105
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ...................105
Animal Health and Zoonoses .....................................................................................................105
129. Restrictions on imports of pork sausages and other pork products, fresh, cured or
salted......................................................................................................................... ..........105
TURKEY ......................................................................................................................... ...................105
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY .............................................105
Animal Health and Zoonoses .....................................................................................................105
130. Ban on pet food imports – Request for information fr om Hungary ...................................105
131. Import ban on livestock.................................................................................................... ..106
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ..107
132. Restrictions on banana im ports ..........................................................................................107
UNITED ST ATES.................................................................................................................. ............107
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES .........................107
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ...107
133. Restrictions on melons ..................................................................................................... ..107
134. Notification G/SPS/N/USA/133 on refriger ation and labelling requirements for
shell eggs ..................................................................................................................... .......108
Animal Health and Zoonoses .....................................................................................................108
2. (and Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand) - Import restrictions
affecting BSE-fr ee countries ..................................................................................................2G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page xvii
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore,
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, and others) – Measures related to BSE ...........................4
28. (and Canada) - Import rest rictions due to FMD ...................................................................24
135. Import restrictions on m eat and meat products ..................................................................108
136. Measures related to BSE .................................................................................................... 109
137. Restrictions on pigmeat .................................................................................................... ..110
138. Regionalization in relatio n to animal  health.......................................................................110
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ..110
139. Restrictions on imports of Chinese potted plants in growing medium...............................110
140. Import restrictions on potted plants  from the European Communities...............................111
141. Imports of citrus fruit .................................................................................................... .....112
142. Imports of clemen tines ..................................................................................................... ..112
143. Import restrictions on rhodode ndrons in growing medium ................................................113
144. Interim rule affecting soli d wood packaging material........................................................113
145. Actions taken by lo cal governments...................................................................................114
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE UNITED STATES .............................................................................114
URUGUAY ........................................................................................................................ .................116
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY URUGUAY ...........................................116
Animal Health and Zoonoses .....................................................................................................116
146. Risk assessment on  BSE.................................................................................................... 116
CONCERNS RAISED BY URUGUAY ..............................................................................................116
VENEZU ELA...................................................................................................................... ...............117
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY VENEZUELA .......................................117
Animal Health and Zoonoses .....................................................................................................117
147. FMD Restrictions ........................................................................................................... ....117
148. Import conditions for po rk meat and products ...................................................................117
149. Measures related to  Avian Influenza..................................................................................117
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ..118
150. Phytosanitary requirements for potatoes, garlic and onions...............................................118
Other Concerns ...........................................................................................................................119
151. Restrictions on imports of potatoes, fresh mushrooms, fresh tomatoes, fertilised
eggs, day-old chicks and meat products .............................................................................119G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page xviii
OTHER CO NCERNS ................................................................................................................. .......120
ANIMAL HEALTH CONCERNS MAINTAINED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS ......................................120
Animal Health and Zoonoses .....................................................................................................120
152. Certain Members - FMD-rela ted import rest rictions..........................................................120
153. Certain Members – Notifications related to Avian Influenza.............................................122
PHYTOSANITARY  CONCE RNS ...................................................................................................122
CONCERNS RELATED TO PHYTOSANITARY ISSUES IN GENERAL .............................................122
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ..122
154. Phytosanitary issu es in general...........................................................................................1 22G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 1
ARGENTINA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to TSEs
1. Argentina – BSE related measures
Raised by: Canada
Supported by: United States
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 60-63), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras.
46-49)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/65
Solution: Not reported
1. Canada indicated that Argentina appeared to have copied the EC geographical BSE risk
categorization scheme (GBR), and had not followed  an international standard or conducted a risk
assessment.  Canada had been given a Level 2 rating, although it had no BSE.  Argentina had not
requested any data from Canada.  Furthermore, Canada questioned why the scheme had been notified
as an emergency measure, and why Argentina had followed the EC measures instead of carrying out
its own analysis. The United States shared Canada's concern and encouraged Argentina to considerthe BSE risk assessment and data from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
2. Argentina explained that its measures were based on the available information.  If a Member
felt the categorization was unjust, it should present the necessary technical information, in which case
the review would be given priority.  Argentina believed its system was in compliance with the OIE
Code.  Argentina had to take urgent action to update its BSE measures and any delay would have
posed unacceptable risks to Argentina's own BSE status.
3. In November 2002, Canada reported that it had provided a large body of information to
Argentina but had not yet had a response.  Cana da did not have BSE and did not understand how it
could have been given such a rating without any risk assessment having been conducted by Argentina.
The United States, which was also free of BSE, shared Canada's concern.  The United States
encouraged Argentina, as well as other countries, to make use of the information resulting from the
BSE risk assessment undertaken by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
4. Argentina reported that it had reviewed the measure and amended the provisions in Annex II
which contained the country ranking based on a risk assessment.  These amendments would be
undertaken soon.  Argentina was completing its analysis of the additional information submitted by
Canada, and a reply would soon be provided bilaterally.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 2
2. 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: Not reported
5. 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 riskassessment.  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 UnitedStates, 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.
6. 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 for
comments 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 additionalinformation necessary for a more objective assessment of the risks involved.  Argentina indicated that
its 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 riskassessment, but stressed that this should only take place once the necessary information had been
provided.
7. In July 2001, Bulgaria reiterated its concern regarding import restrictions affecting BSE-free
countries.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 3
3. 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: Measure revised and not ified (G/SPS/N/ARG/47/Rev.1).
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 on
dairy products.  A new, less restrictive sanitary certificate would be notified soon.  Regarding humanG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 4
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.
13. 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 any
restriction on EC dairy products; they just had to be certified as coming from establishments where nocase, 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.
4. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France,
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, 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: 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.
14. 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 the
border.   In March 1997, Switzerland indicated that although it was a country of low incidence ofBSE, 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.
15. In July 1997, Switzerland reported that although there had been some positive developments,
problems remained.  Switzerland addressed some questions to the Members concerned, stressing itsinterest to find rapid solutions through bilateral discussions.  Argentina informed the Committee that
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 onG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 5
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.
16. 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 draftmeasure, 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.
17. 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 led
to 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 Statesrequired certification for dried meat, and hoped that the reviewed US policies would be in line with
OIE recommendations.
18. 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 werecarried 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 be
consistent with the SPS Agreement, and planned to notify it shortly.
19. 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 were
taken 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 althoughthere 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.
20. 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 incertain 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 no
international 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 all
other countries.  International standards existed and Australia did not consider that the notified draft
measures deviated from such standards.
21. 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 tradersG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 6
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 always
the 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 OIErecommendations, 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 EC
measures which represented a higher rate of prevention than the OIE recommendations.  The Czech
Republic offered to continue bilateral discussions with Switzerland.
22. 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 European
Communities, 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.
23. 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 usefulbilateral 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 European
Communities 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.
24. 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 beenfound.  Chile reported that its measure affecting imports of bovine semen had been modified.
Other Animal Health Concerns
5. 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: Not reported
25. The European Communities observed that the Argentine measure applied to the entire
European Communities.  The European Communities had taken measures to regionalize the EC
member States with restrictions with regard to Classic Swine Fever.  Argentina replied that it believedin the principle of regionalization, but had found that there was no basis to assume compliance withinG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 7
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 information
received so as to adjust its measure as appropriate.
Other Concerns
6. Argentina -  Pest risk assessment requirements
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Canada, European Communities, New Zealand
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 80-82).
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/67 and G/SPS/N/ARG/68
Solution: Not reported
26. The United States sought clarification on the criteria Argentina would use in determining
whether or not a product tracing system through the production and marketing chain met therequirements of this measure.  The measure also referred to mutual agreements under which
Argentina authorized imports of animals and animal products and the United States requested
information about existing agreements that Argentina might have concluded, as well as the criteria
and procedures for future such agreements.  Furthermore, the United States sought information on the
role of equivalence under this measure, for example, would Argentina recognize the overall inspectionsystems of exporting countries, or only verify compliance with Argentine requirements?
27. Canada stated that certain elements of Argentina's measure were unnecessarily trade
restrictive, such as the requirement for an aud ited traceability system throughout the entire product
and marketing chain for a wide range of products, live animals, reproductive material, soil dressing
etc.  Canada was concerned that all foreign establishments would be subject to prior inspection andauthorization that was only valid for two years.  This requirement provided no flexibility for cases
where no risk problems were present, and could result in high costs to exporters.  The representatives
of New Zealand and of the European Communities supported the concerns raised by the United States
and Canada and expressed a systemic interest in the issue.
28. Argentina requested the United States to provide its questions in writing.  The notification
was open for comments and the period for comments had been extended due to requests from trading
partners.  Argentina noted that other countries, including the European Communities, approved plantsfor export to their markets only after visiting those plants, and then the conditions were maintained by
Argentina.
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY ARGENTINA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 50 European Communities  – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/150 on traceability and labelling
of  genetically modified organisms and food and feed
Item  58 European Communities  – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in
foodstuffs
Item  83 Iceland's  notification on meat and meat productsG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 8
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 30 Chile- Pet food import requirements
FMD Concerns
Item 17 Bolivia –  FMD trade restrictions-
Item 152 Certain Members –  FMD-related import restrictions
Item 31 Chile –  FMD Restrictions
Item 39 Colombia –  FMD Restrictions
Item 40 Cuba –  Import restrictions on spiced pork and salted meat products
Item 87 Indonesia –  Import restrictions on dairy products
Item 88 Indonesia –  FMD restrictions
Item  96 Japan –  Measures regarding FMD
Item 105 Korea –  Import restrictions on beef
Item 108 Mexico –  Import restrictions on beef
Item 129 Trinidad and Tobago  – Restrictions on imports of pork sausages and other pork products,
fresh cured or salted
Item 147 Venezuela  – FMD restrictions
Plant Health Concerns
Item 38 China –  Import restrictions for citrus and other fruits related to fruit fly
Item 41 Cuba –  Restrictions on apples and pears
Item 75 European Communities –  Citrus canker
Item 77 European Communities (Spain) –   Phytosanitary regulations
Item 127 Switzerland –  Notifications on wheat, rye and triticale
Item 141 United States –  Imports of citrus fruit
Item 150 Venezuela —Phytosanitary requirements for potatoes, garlic and onions
Other Concerns
Item 102 Japan and Korea –  Translation of regulationsG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 9
AUSTRALIA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA
Food Safety7. 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: Australian tolerance level modified in June 2000. In October 2001, the
Philippines confirmed that sauces were no longer being detained.
29. 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 were
allowed 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 beensuccessful.  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 both
countries.  Australia expected that the final standard for food additives would be implemented in the
first half of 1999.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. In October 2001, the Philippines confirmed that Australia had modified the tolerance level for
benzoic acid in sauces, and that detention of Philippine sauces in Australia due to benzoic acid had
not been noted in Hold Order Lists since June 2000.
8. 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: Switzerland reported that a mutually satisfactory solution had been found.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 10
33. 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 before
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.
34. 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 risk
assessment 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 wasbeing 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.
35. 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 on17 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 solutionhad been found.
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Other Animal Health Concerns
9. Australia – Restriction on pigmeat
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 75-76)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
36. The European Communities noted that Australia banned imports of pigmeat from the
European Communities, except Danish pigmeat subjec t to a specific heat treatment.  Australia had
began a risk assessment for pigmeat imports in May 1998, and although the results had been
scheduled for February 2000 they had not been presented and no alternative date had been set.  Four
and a half years was too long a delay to wait for a risk assessment to be undertaken.  The European
Communities had formally proposed equivalent measures, but Australia had not accepted these.  The
European Communities requested Australia to take a decision as quickly as possible.
37. Australia indicated that a generic import risk analysis (IRA) of the quarantine risks and risk
management options associated with disease agents that may be introduced into Australia with
pigmeat imported from a number of countries, includi ng EC member States was being conducted.  A
technical issues paper issued early in 2001 identified a range of quarantine risks including foot-and-
mouth disease, African swine fever, classical swine fe ver, as well as various other pig diseases.  The
pigmeat IRA was necessarily comprehensive and complex;  Australia's pig industry had a veryG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 11
favourable health status.  In the case of EC exports, the risk analysis had to deal with three OIE List A
diseases, as well as a number of other serious diseases present in EC member States but absent in
Australia.  For some serious diseases little scientific information was available and Australia had to
commission significant research to provide independent scientific information on a range of issues
including the transmissibility of Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome (PRRS).  The
results of some mayor research was expected to be available at the end of the year.  Technical inputfrom the European Communities on PRRS and other diseases being considered in the import risk
analysis would be welcomed.
10. Australia - Import restrictions on prawn and prawn products
Raised by: Thailand on behalf of ASEAN
Supported by: Philippines on behalf of ASEAN
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 84-85), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras.
109-111), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para-137), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27,
paras. 138-139), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 193-194)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/124, G/SPS/N/AUS/126
Solution: Not reported
38. 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 riskmanagement measures for White Spot Syndrome and Yellow Head Virus.  Prior to the deadline for
comments, 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 morerestrictive 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 point
was 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.
39. 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 urged
Australia 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 wasbeing examined and, if approved, would result in less trade restrictive measures.
40. In March 2002, Thailand sought information regarding the status of Australia's risk analysis,
noting that the original date for conclusion of the risk assessment had been June 2001.  Australia
replied that work on the risk analysis was continuing, and all stakeholders would be informed of the
current status by letter.  In response to requests from importers, Biosecurity Australia was conductingan equivalence assessment to determine if there we re less trade restrictive alternative measures which
could be applied to highly processed prawn products.
41. In June 2002, Thailand requested information on the period of application of the interim
measure related to white spot syndrome and its scientific basis.  Malaysia and the Philippines
expressed interest in this issue.  Australia replied that a report had been published on progress made,including a summary of a meeting with stakeholders.  The next meeting of the risk analysis panel
considering the issue was scheduled for late July 2002, after which a draft risk analysis report wouldG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 12
be issued.  The scientific concerns on white spot syndrome which had led to the interim measure
remained.  Australia had completed an equivalence assessment, and on 25 June 2002 implemented
changes in the requirements for highly processed prawn products.
42. In November 2002, Thailand expressed concerns over the continuation of the interim measure
imposed by Australia and urged Australia to complete the risk analysis and abolish the measure as
soon as possible.  The Philippines, speaking on behalf of ASEAN, supported the concerns expressedby Thailand and noted their interest in monitoring the issue.  Australia reported that the next step of
the Australian IRA would be the release of a revised draft import risk analysis report.  In the
meantime, the interim measures from June 2002, including the amended conditions, would continue.
The interim measure was science based, temporary and applied only to a small proportion of prawn
exports to Australia from Thailand and other countries.  Experts from the aquatic animal biosecurity
team had recently visited Thailand to work out a cooperative technical assistance programme
exploiting the feasibility of alternate measures, including area disease freedom, which might enhanceprospects for trade in the prawn products of concern.
11. 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), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 135-137), November 2002
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 190-192)
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: Not reported
43. In September 1998, Thailand stated 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 and
time 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 discuss
the 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.
44. 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 was
presented to Australia.  In May 2001, the OIE had agreed to conduct research on appropriate heat
treatment to inactivate the IBD virus in poultry.
45. In June 2002, Thailand informed the Committee that its risk assessment on IBD virus in Thai
cooked chicken meat to Australia showed that the risk of introducing IBDV to backyard flocksthrough cooked chicken meat was negligible.  This report had been submitted to Australia in May
2002.  Thailand hoped that within its new food safety mandate, the OIE would undertake work on
IBD.  Australia indicated that conditions for importation of cooked chicken had come into effect in
August 1998, setting certain time and temperature cooking parameters.  Thailand had applied for
access for product from a certain facility, and had recently provided information.  Australia wouldprovide a response once the Thai document had been considered by an expert review group.  TheG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 13
representative of the OIE reiterated his request that Members submit information on IBD to be able to
make progress with the work undertaken by the OIE.
46. In November 2002, Thailand indicated that it was still waiting for a response from Australia
on the basis of the risk assessment results.  Australia noted that at its recent meeting the Australian
risk analysis panel had examined the Thai document in detail.  The panel had prepared technical
comments and questions about aspects of the Thai ri sk assessment which would shortly be sent to the
relevant Thai authorities.  The representative of the OIE took note of the risk analysis document, and
indicated that as soon as the OIE received more information and data from Members it would be in a
position to review the OIE chapter through its expert working group.
12. 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: Dispute settlement (W/DS18 and W/DS26, respectively).  Mutually agreed
resolution between Canada and Australia reported in May 2000.
47. 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 andpathogens 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 the
ban.  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.
48. 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 DisputeSettlement Body.
Plant Health
13. 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), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para.
39).
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Mutually agreed solution on a series of risk management procedures to be
re-evaluated in a year.
49. 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 aG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 14
year had elapsed since the release of the import risk assessment (IRA).  Australia had conducted
additional 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 aneed 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.
50. 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 not
seem to have an end.  Australia had initiated new studies whose chief purpose seemed to be to delaylifting 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 scientificconcerns.  However, additional research on a pest not found in shipments of table grapes was
completely 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.
51. 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.
52. In March 2002, the United States reported that following consultations, Australia and the
United States had agreed on a series of risk management procedures to allow for the export of
California table grapes to Australia.  The risk management practices would be re-evaluated after one
year.
14. 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: Not reported
53. 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 onG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 15
expert advice and reflected the minimum temperature requirement established by the European Plant
Protection Organization.
15. Australia – Import restrictions on durian
Raised by: Thailand
Supported by: European Communities, India, Malaysia, Philippines on behalf of ASEAN
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 11-14), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25,
paras. 107-108), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 133-134), November 2002
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 187-189)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/217, G/SPS/GEN/218
Solution: Not reported
54. 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 underunduly 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.
55. 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 thismatter 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 and
acknowledged 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.
56. 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 been
finalized 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 thatinspections of packing houses and orchards could begin in Thailand and import permits be issued.
57. In June 2002, Thailand reiterated concerns that Australia required cutting of the product for
inspection purposes, and applied an excessive sample size.  Malaysia and the Philippines supported
the concerns expressed by Thailand on this issue.  Australia indicated their willingness to consider
alternatives to destructive sampling if their efficacy was shown.  On the basis of joint trials, X-raytechnology appeared promising.
58. In November 2002, Thailand recalled that it had been seeking access to Australia's market for
durian since 1991.  The matter had been pursued on a bilateral basis, but to date no agreement had
been reached.  Thailand was of the view that Australia should have concluded its consideration of the
alternative method of rapid scan for inspection of import durian.  The Philippines, on behalf ofASEAN, expressed systemic concerns and noted their interest in monitoring developments in this
matter.  Australia reiterated that the import conditions were subject to review after the first year of
trade, and that other less destructive methods of inspection could be substituted for fruit cutting, if
efficacy data showed that it could provide an equivalent level of quarantine protection from the key
pests of concern.  Australia was willing to continue to work with the Thai authorities to make progress
on the assessment of non destructive inspection methods.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 16
16. Australia – Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit
Raised by: Philippines on behalf of 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: Not reported
59. 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 risk
assessment and risk management to avoid the introduction of diseases.  Both countries indicated that
they were conducting bilateral consultations on the matter.
60. 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 more
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 tradingpartners involved and varied according to the exporter's pest status.
61. 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 formango 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.
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY AUSTRALIA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 58 European Communities  – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in
foodstuffs
Item 104 Korea –  Shelf-life requirements
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 66 EC – Cosmetics and BSE
Plant Health Concerns
Item 90 Indonesia –   Fresh fruit and vegetablesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 17
BOLIVIA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to FMD
17. Bolivia - FMD trade restrictions
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, para. 30)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
62. Argentina informed that it was engaged in bilateral consultations with Bolivia on this matter.
Other Animal Health Concerns
18. 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: Agreement on a protocol and progress reported in July 2001.
63. 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.
64. 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, but
the 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 Chilethere was a risk of Avian infectious anaemia.  Bolivia's National Food and Agricultural Health
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.
65. 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 18
CONCERNS RAISED BY BOLIVIA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item  58 European Communities  – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in
foodstuffs
BRAZIL
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL
Food Safety
19. 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: Not reported
66. 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 Brazil
was 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 the
consumer, and planned to present written comments to Brazil once an SPS notification had been
made.
67. 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 inspectionrequirements for individual establishments were based on science, and expressed concern over
certification 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 19
Other Animal Health Concerns
20. Brazil – Imports of live ostriches
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 97)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/67
Solution: Not reported
68. The European Communities stated that they would bilaterally request clarification of the legal
scope and scientific grounds for the measure.  Brazil reported that the import restriction on live
ostriches was due to the possible threats posed to the Brazilian poultry industry.  The regulation that
had been notified to the SPS Committee required that the OIE existing standards for inspection,
supervision and quarantine requirements, both at the point of origin and the point of destiny, be
followed.  Brazil took note of the request from the European Communities to provide the necessaryrisk assessment for the non OIE-listed diseases and agreed to convey this request to the relevant
authorities.
Plant Health
21. Brazil – Pest risk assessments for imports of plant origin
Raised by: Canada
Supported by: Australia, European Communities, New Zealand, Peru, United States
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28 , paras. 77-79)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/65
Solution: Not reported
69. Canada referred to Brazil's legislative requirement for pest risk assessments for all vegetable
products imported into Brazil, published on 28 March 2002.  While Canada did not challenge the right
of Brazil to conduct pest risk analysis for imported commodities, they considered the measure asunduly restrictive of trade, in particular given that imports would be suspended on 27 November
2002, pending completion of the pest risk assessments.  Canada had exported a number of products
covered by this measure for many years without any particular concern, and requested Brazil to allow
existing trade from well known sources to continue while the pest risk assessments were being
completed.  In this regard, Canada was prepared to provide the information required to facilitate theearly completion of any risk assessments concerning products from Canada.
70. The United States did not believe that it was necessary or justifiable to ban or temporarily halt
the importation of products while PRAs were being conducted unless there was a specific pest risk
problem that would required such drastic action.  Australia, the European Communities, New Zealand
and Peru shared the concerns expressed by Canada and the United States and requested Brazil towithdraw the application of the measure.
71. Brazil stated that one key concern was that many PRAs were open-ended and the studies
never came to completion.  Brazil was reassessing the matter and considering alternatives to the
PRAs, such as the possibility of extending the time-frame for implementation of the measure in the
case of ongoing studies, including cases where documents had already been forwarded to Brazil.Brazil requested trading partners to identify their concerns in writing, so that responses could be
provided by the competent authorities.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 20
22. Brazil – Import requirements for seed potatoes
Raised by: European Communities, Canada
Supported by: Canada
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27 , paras. 24-26), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28 ,
paras. 63-68)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
72. The European Communities reported stated that on 13 November 2001, the Brazilian
authorities had given notice of new measures on imports of seed potatoes that Brazil had notified new
measures on imports of seed potatoes, but had provided no delay for their implementation, no
technical justification and had not respected the need for transparency.  As one of the main suppliers
to Brazil, the European Communities had commented on the measures, but Brazil's initial response
had not addressed the EC's concerns and, in particular, had not identified the pest risk assessmentjustifying its measure.  The requested information had been provided during bilateral consultations
held before the SPS Committee meeting, and the European Communities looked forward to
continuing the bilateral process with Brazil.  Canada expressed concern with Brazil's required export
certification for non quarantine regulated pests, in contradiction to internationally agreed principles
and practices.  Canada was also involved in bilateral discussion with the Brazilian authorities and hadrequested Brazil to withdraw its measure.  Brazil indicated that it hoped subsequent technical
consultations would resolve the issue.
73. In November 2002, Canada expressed concerns regarding Brazil's required certification for
pests that were not of economic significance nor a significant risk to plant health.  Canada considered
this to be an issue of quality that was more appropriately resolved between the buyer and the seller,and not by government certification schemes.  Although Canadian technical officials were working
with Brazil to complete a risk assessment, this is sue was not being resolved as quickly as warranted.
The European Communities requested Brazil to modify its measures on the basis of the technical
arguments and proposals that had been made bilaterally and requested Brazil to postpone the
implementation of these measures.  The United States shared the concerns expressed by both Canada
and the European Communities concerning the disruption of trade in seed potatoes and requested
Brazil to revise their policy as soon as possible.
74. Brazil noted that consultations on the issue of seed potatoes had been carried out for some
time.  Brazilian experts were considering a new proposal from the European Communities and hoped
to provide a reply as soon as possible.  The Brazilian Directive aimed at enhancing market
opportunities in relation to previous regulations by creating two new categories of imports for seed
potatoes.  Brazil was interested in diversifying their source of suppliers of seed potatoes given thestrategic importance of the sector for Brazil.  National producers were subject to the same
considerations applicable to foreign providers, and his country's motivation could not be construed as
restricting market access for seed potatoes.  Brazil invited the European Communities to send a team
of experts to become familiar with their system, and witness the fact that national producers were
subject to the same considerations as the foreign suppliers.  With respect to the comments made by
Canada, Brazil recalled that the matter had been extensively discussed by authorities from both
countries.  The Brazilian legislation required that exporters of seed potatoes to Brazil had to have a
certification system in place; apparently this was not the case for Canada.  Brazil added that the
concerns voiced by the United States would be transmitted to the competent authorities.
75. Canada clarified that Canada had a certification system for seed potatoes but that the
certification system did not go into minor details on issues of quality.  In response to Brazil's
invitation, the European Communities suggested that Brazil should send a team of experts to inspect
the production and food safety conditions within the European Communities.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 21
23. 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: Not reported
76. 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 hadbeen notified.
77. 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 andrecognition of pest-free areas.
24. 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: Import of certain classes of wheat allowed as of early 2001.
78. 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 in
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 riskassessment 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.
79. 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 22
CONCERNS RAISED BY BRAZIL
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 56 European Communities  – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/62 of emergency measures on citrus
pulp
Item 58 European Communities  – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in
foodstuffs
Item 60 European Communities –  Restrictions on the importation of fruits and fruit juices
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 26 Canada – Measures affecting imports of products containing Brazilian beef
Item 68 European Communities – Gelatin imports
FMD Concerns
Item 111 Norway – Restrictions on gelatin imports
Item 125 South Africa – Restrictions on beef and pork
BULGARIA
CONCERNS RAISED BY BULGARIA
Item
NumberCountries Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States  – Import restrictions
affecting BSE-free countries
CANADA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA
Food Safety
25. 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: Not reported
80. The European Communities raised concerns wi th 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 subsequentG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 23
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 Members
maintained 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.
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to TSEs
26. Canada - 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: Suspension lifted in February 2001.
81. 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 wasespecially 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 authorities
had 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 statusaccording 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 to
present proposals to the SPS Committee and the General Council to address these problems.
27. Canada - 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: Not reported
82. 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 EuropeanCommunities 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 thedisease.  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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 24
Concerns related to FMD
28. 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): Not reported
83. 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.
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY CANADA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 50 European Communities  – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/150 on traceability and labelling of
genetically modified organisms and food and feed
Item 104 Korea – Shelf-life requirements
Item 37 Philippines – Certification of meat and dairy products
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 1 Argentina – BSE related measures
Item 63 European Communities –  EC transitional TSE measures
Item 64 European Communities –  EC geographical BSE risk assessment
Item 81 Hungary –  Restrictions  on bovine products
Item 82 Hungary –  Restrictions  on pork products
Item 84 India – Import restrictions on bovine semen
Other Animal Health Concerns
Item 12 Australia – Ban on salmon imports
Plant Health Concerns
Item 21 Brazil – Pest risk assessments for imports of plant origin
Item 22 Brazil – Import requirements for seed potatoes
Item 72 European Communities – G/SPS/N/EEC/93 on wood packaging material
Other Concerns
Item 115 Panama's import licenses for agricultural productsG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 25
CHILE
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE
Food Safety29. 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: Not reported
84. 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.
85. 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 poultrymeat.  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 on
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 ElSalvador indicated that they would inform their authorities of the statement made by the United
States.
86. 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 ofsalmonella  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.
87. 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 theimported 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.  In
response, 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.
88. In July 2001, the United States reported that it was still discussing the matter with Chile
(G/SPS/GEN/265).G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 26
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to TSEs
30. Chile - Pet food import requirements
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by: United States
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 21-23)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHL/104, G/SPS/GEN/302
Solution: Not reported
89. Argentina raised concerns about Chile draft standard that would require imports of pet food
containing meat and bonemeal from ruminants to undergo thermal treatment (G/ SPS/N/CHL/104)..
This requirement was stricter than the OIE recommendations and lacked sufficient scientific grounds
and risk analysis to justify this higher level of protection (G/SPS/GEN/302).  The EU ScientificSteering Committee had given Argentina a Level 1 rati ng, i.e. "highly unlikely that domestic cattle are
(clinically or pre-clinically) infected with BSE agent".  The United States indicated that the OIE
Animal Health Code did not recommend that c ountries free of BSE undertake the treatment outlined
in the notification.  The United States hoped that the Chilean authorities would take the results of the
Harvard Risk Analysis into account.
90. Chile stressed that a distinction had to be made between countries free of BSE and countries
free of TSEs;  the draft Chilean measure also included the latter within its scope.  Chile further
clarified that the procedures had to be applied to raw materials in pet food and not to the final product.
Concerns related to FMD
31. Chile - FMD restrictions
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by: Brazil, United States
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 90-91), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.
40-41), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, para. 126)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHL/102
Solution: Not reported
91. 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 of
permitting 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 draftregulation 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 received
had not yet been considered.  Chile had not yet been asked to provide a risk assessment by the
Argentine authorities.
92. In March 2002,  Argentina referred to Chilean notification G/SPS/N/CHL/102 on fresh and
frozen meat controls.  It appeared Chile would perm it imports from countries in one of two categories:
FMD free without vaccination or FMD free with vaccination.  The draft Chilean regulation did not
allow for the import of fresh or frozen bovine meat from countries with zones infected with FMD.  As
such, the requirement was more demanding than the OIE Animal Health Code which permittedG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 27
imports if risk mitigation procedures were followed in countries where FMD was present.  Argentina
requested Chile to amend its draft regulation to reflect the OIE code, or to show sufficient scientific
grounds for not applying the international reference standard. Brazil supported Argentina and the
United States stated that they had sent  written comments to Chile and hoped that these comments
would be taken into account.
93. Chile explained that the entry into force of the measures in question had been postponed twice
to enable other trading partners to make additiona l comments.  Controlling the 1987 outbreak of FMD
in Chile had cost $8.5 million and forced the eradication of 30,000 animals – a considerable cost for
Chile.  Nevertheless, Chile planned to allow for the possibility of importing from countries not
recognized as FMD free by the OIE, on the basis of a risk assessment by the Chilean authorities.  In
the case of Argentina, Chile had not learnt of the FMD outbreak in that country through their bilateral
usual channels so the normal risk analysis procedures could not be applied and emergency measures
had had to be instituted.
94. In June 2002, Argentina reported that progress had been made towards resolving this issue at
bilateral meetings.
Plant Health
32. 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: Restrictions on wheat removed in October 1997.  Import access granted for
certain fruit; consultations on other fruit continuing.
95. 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.
96. 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.3
Page 28
CONCERNS RAISED BY CHILE
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
 Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 65 European Communities –  Restrictions on the use of fishmeal
Other Animal Health Concerns
Item 18 Bolivia –  Restrictions on poultry meat imports
Item 71 European Communities – Salmonella-related restriction on fishmeal imports
Plant Health Concerns
Item 145 United States – Actions taken by local governments
CHINA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA
Food Safety33. China – Food safety regulations affecting agricultural products produced from modern
biotechnology
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Canada
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 12-14), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 21-
23), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 93-94)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/10
Solution: Not reported
97. In March 2002, the United States but expressed serious concerns about China's Ministry of
Agriculture implementing regulations for the management agricultural biotechnology products.  Theseregulations, originally published on 6 June 2001, were released, without warning on 7 January 2002.
The regulations, which required pre-market approval and mandatory labelling of biotech products and
affected GMO imports, were scheduled to go into effect on 20 March 2002.  The United States noted
that China had not notified these regulations to the WTO, precluding any chance for comment by
interested WTO Members.  Furthermore, certain aspects of the new regulations appeared to beinconsistent with WTO rules, and established different approval procedures for imported and
domestic products.  The United States welcomed the interim measures issued on 11 March 2002,
which streamlined measures for the importation of biotech agricultural products through
20 December 2002.  Canada, Argentina and Australia associated themselves with the concerns
expressed by the United States.
98. China explained that public anxiety country over  the safety of GM agricultural products and
foods had led the Chinese Government to issue regulatory rules in May 2001.  As China was not at thattime a WTO Member, it had no obligation to make a notification.  However, China intended to notify
the three implementing measures issued in January 2002t once the English versions had been finalised.
China reported that bilateral consultations had been  held with the major parties concerned and that
interim measures had been introduced to avoid disruption of normal trade.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 29
99. In June 2002, the United States reported that China's Ministry of Health had issued a decree
on biotech safety and labelling on 8 April 2002.  The decree would take effect on 8 July, but the
Ministry of Health had not issued implementing regulations.  Additionally, the decree had not been
notified.  The United States believed that mandatory labelling for biotech products that were
substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts had no scientific justification.  Under such
circumstances, labelling wrongly implied a possible risk to the consumer.  US companies exported toChina over US$ 1 billion/year of biotechnology pr oducts, including soybeans and corn, and processed
products.  The United States requested an interim period for implementation of the decree, to allow
sufficient time for compliance by exporters.  Canada and Argentina shared the concerns expressed by
the United States.  China explained that the failure to notify the measure in advance had been
inadvertent, and invited Members to send comments to  its Enquiry Point or directly to the Ministry of
Health.  China also expressed an interest in holding bilateral consultations with interested WTO
Members.
100. In November 2002, the United States and Argentina expressed concern regarding the
implementation dates proposed for the April regulations and requested China to consider ways to
reduce the possible trade effects.  Argentina also reported that it had held bilateral consultations with
China on this matter.  China clarified that notification of the draft regulation had been submitted just
prior to the last SPS Committee meeting.  China's Ministry of Health had agreed to extend the interimperiod for one year.
34. China – Zero tolerance for e-coli
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 87-88)
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/CHN/6
Solution: Not reported
101. The United States recognized the need for China to reduce bacterial contamination on raw
meats and poultry products to the lowest achievable level but had two concerns related to this
notification.  The United States believed that the complete elimination of enteropathogenic bacteria in
raw meats and poultry products was not achievable using existing technologies and practices and they
were interested in more information related to the risk assessment that had been used as the basis forthis zero tolerance.  Experience in the United States had shown that carcasses of normal healthy birds
and animals could still contain a variety of bacteria, including those of concern to China, but proper
preparation and handling could eliminate health concerns.  As the basis of China's notification
appeared to be food safety and human health concerns, the United States requested that China also
notify this proposed regulation under the SPS Agreement.  China agreed to consult with thestandardizing agency and take the necessary steps.
35. China – Import ban on products of Dutch origin
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras 31-32), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras
73-74)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
102. The European Communities stated that the Chinese authorities had suspended imports of all
products of animal origin from the Netherlands after detection of one positive consignment in a single
category of products. The European Communities considered this measure to be more trade restrictiveG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 30
than necessary, and noted that in a similar situation with regard to Chinese products, the European
Communities had given China sufficient time to solve problems of detection of the presence of
chloramphenicol in their products.
103. China noted that the use of chloramphenicol in animal foodstuffs had been prohibited in EC
member States since 1994.  When the substance had been detected in Dutch products, China had
imposed a provisional ban and immediately alerted the Dutch authorities.  China had received part ofthe information requested, and was waiting for further information so as to review its measure.  The
representative of China reported that the problem apparently arose due to Dutch imports of feedstuffs
from some eastern European countries, which gave rise to concerns regarding Dutch import control
measures, residue monitoring systems and export control measures.
104. In November 2002, the European Communities reported that some progress had been made,
however they requested China to increase efforts to resolve the issue.  The European Communities
considered this a disproportionate reaction to a problem that could have been resolved in a mutuallysatisfactory manner without disrupting trade.  China observed that other countries had faced similar
problems with Dutch products.  His country was working to remove the ban remaining for some
products.  For this purpose, the Netherlands had been invited to provide information to enable China
to conduct a risk assessment, as soon as possible.
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to TSEs
36. China - Import requirements for cosmetics
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 13-14), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras.
50-51)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
105. The European Communities noted that China had imposed import restrictions on cosmetics
beginning in March 2002.  The new regulations prohibited cosmetics containing certain ingredients of
animal origin from 18 countries having officially declared the existence of BSE.  Cosmetics fromthese 18 countries required certification that they did not contain specified products of bovine or ovine
origin.  According to China's notification, the justification of the measure was to prevent introducing
BSE into China.  The European Communities consid ered that the measures were in contradiction to
the SPS Agreement.  China had notified its measures as emergency measures, whereas BSE had been
present in those countries for many years and there was no new scientific evidence indicating aparticular risk from cosmetics.  In addition, the measures had no scientific basis and went far beyond
the OIE standard on BSE and were disproportionate compared to the risks.   The measures were also
discriminatory, because they did not apply in the same manner to all countries where identical
sanitary conditions prevailed.  The European Communities requested that China make available the
scientific justification and the risk assessment underlying the measure.
106. China indicated that it only prohibited the importation of cosmetics derived from bovine or
ovine brains, placenta, nerves, etc. from BSE-infected countries and regions, in accordance with the
OIE and WHO recommendations.  China had notified its measure and requested exporting countries
to provide the names and signatures of the authorities responsible for issuing the certificates ensuring
that the cosmetics met the Chinese requirements.  Several EC member States had proceededG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 31
accordingly and China had recognized, or was in the process of recognizing, the competent certifying
authorities of those member States.
107. In November 2002, the European Communities reported good progress in resolving this issue.
Extensive bilateral trade in cosmetics between China and the European Communities had taken place
before China introduced the new provisions, and in particular the protective measures related to BSE.
EC experts on BSE-related risk assessment were to visit Beijing, and both countries were hopeful thatthe discussions would lead to a resolution of the problem.
Plant Health
37. China – Regulation on wood packaging material
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 38-39)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/14,
Solution: Not reported
108. The European Communities stated that a number of aspects of the Chinese regulation on
wood packaging material, notified as G/SPS/N/CHN/14, caused serious problems.  There were
important discrepancies between the Chinese legislation and relevant guidelines from the IPPC, in
particular ISPM 15.  The European Communities had gone to considerable lengths to address theconcerns of the Chinese authorities, and a lot of progress had been made in particular following a visit
from a number of experts to China.  The European Communities encouraged China to come into
conformity with the IPPC standard as expeditiously as possible, and to work towards resolving the
issue.
109. China reported that during 2001 and 2002, large numbers of pests were regularly detected by
the inspection and quarantine authorities of Chin a in wood packaging material from the European
Communities.  China had notified this situation to the European Communities repeatedly, and finally
decided to take emergency measures on 19 April 2002 in order to prevent the introduction of
dangerous wood pests, and to ensure the protection of the environment, forestry and tourism resources
in the country.  The notification and the risk analysis report were sent to the European Communities
for comments, to which China replied in detail on 17 June 2002.  Following that date no further
comments had been received from the European Communities; the measure had been imposed on 28June 2002, and notified to the WTO.  The measure was based on scientific principles and on a risk
analysis in line with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement.
38. China – Import restrictions for citrus and other fruits related to fruit fly
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 24-25), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 50-
51)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
110. Argentina noted that bilateral consultations were on-going with the Chinese authorities to
overcome difficulties related to the export of apples, pears and citrus fruit to China due to the latter's
fruit-fly restrictions.  Various procedures, including the use of cold treatment, were being used to
overcome these difficulties.  Argentina requested the Chinese authorities to provide a list of
outstanding questions related to risk assessment and further information requests.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 32
111. China explained that Medfly and South American fruit fly had not been reported in China and
that a risk assessment by Chinese experts had concluded that the risk of introducing these pests from
Argentina was high.  China was requesting Argentina to provide data on the efficacy of cold treatment
against fruit flies and to demonstrate that it could provide an equivalent level of protection in
comparison with importing from pest-free areas.  Ch ina noted that establishing pest-free areas was not
practicable for all pests, as recognized by the IPPC standard, and that countries with advancedresearch on fruit fly control and quarantine did not accept importation from countries where the pest
had previously been present, even if they were currently pest-free.  China was open to bilateral
technical discussions and joint research with Argentina on this issue.
112. In June 2002, Argentina informed that despite having held bilateral consultations with China,
the issue was not resolved.  China indicated that it was prepared to consider alternative treatments, but
had not yet received any technical data demonstrating that establishing pest free production places and
cold treatment could provide equivalent protection to the establishment of pest-free areas.
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY CHINA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 94 Japan's amendment of the food sanitation law
Plant Health Concerns
Item 117 Philippine –  Notification on Chinese fruit
Item 139 United States —Restrictions on imports of Chinese potted plants in growing medium
COLOMBIA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA
Animal Health and Zo onoses
Concerns related to FMD
39. Colombia - FMD restrictions
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 18-19), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 44-
45), November 2002 , (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 56-58)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
113. Argentina reported that Colombia had restricted imports of certain products from Argentina
on 26 September 2001, after the FMD outbreaks in Argentina.  Colombia had agreed to acceptArgentine products for which risk mitigation techniques could be applied according to the OIE code,
and on 17 October 2001 had published new measures specifying those processed products which
could be imported.  An inspection visit by the Colombian sanitary services in late October 2001
complemented the information provided by the Ar gentine services.  However, Argentina was unable
to export the products in question due to continued information requests from Colombia.  Colombianoted that it had replied to comments and questions from Argentina in November 2001 and MarchG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 33
2002.  Argentina did not have establishments authorised by the Colombian Livestock Institute (ICA)
to export risk products to Colombia.  Colombia was considering the process and production methods
at Argentine establishments to inactivate the virus in risk materials, and if satisfactory, Argentine
establishments would receive the necessary ICA authorization.
114. In June 2002, Argentina indicated that its exports continued to be restricted.  Colombia
recalled that no plants in Argentina were currently certified to export to Colombia.  However,Colombia had identified 10 plants in Argentina for which it needed to update information, and another
38 plants which it proposed to visit for the first time.  Only 21 of these establishments had provided
the information needed for the Colombian Agricultural Institute to undertake certification visits.
115. In November 2002, Argentina noted that Colombia continued to prohibit Argentine meat
despite the fact that there had been no new outbreaks in Argentina for nine months.  Colombia still
had not carried out inspections of 21 packing plants which Colombia claimed was necessary before
trade in beef meat could resume.  Colombia stated that Argentina had blocked imports of freshflowers from Colombia, and requested Argentina not to link these two issues.  Argentina indicated
that there was no linkage to Colombian flowers, and asked Colombia to provide information as to
whether it would carry out the veterinary inspections in Argentina so that beef meat exports could
resume.
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY COLOMBIA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Other Concerns
Item 151 Venezuela  – Restrictions on imports of potatoes, fresh mushrooms, fresh tomatoes,
fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and meat products
COSTA RICA
CONCERNS RAISED BY COSTA RICA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Other Animal Health Concerns
Item 79 Honduras –  Import restrictions on chicken meat importsG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 34
CÔTE D'IVOIRE
CONCERNS RAISED BY CÔTE  D' I VOIRE
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 51 European Communities – Directive 2000/42 on pesticide residues
CROATIA
CONCERNS RAISED BY CROATIA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States — Import
Restrictions affecting BSE-free countries
CUBA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to FMD
40. Cuba – Import restrictions on spi ced pork and salted meat products
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 15-16), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para.
182)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/325
Solution: Not reported
116. Argentina indicated that exports of spiced pork and salted meat products to Cuba were
prohibited due to Cuba's zero risk approach with  regard to FMD (G/SPS/GEN/325).  Argentina had
submitted evidence that the FMD virus would not be transmitted as a result of the processing of these
products.  Moreover, Argentina's proposed certification fully complied with OIE standards.
Nonetheless, Cuba only permitted imports of bovine meat from countries free of FMD without
vaccination.  Argentina requested Cuba to lift its restrictions, or to provide sufficient scientific
evidence to justify its measure.  Cuba indicated that bilateral consultations had been initiated on the
issue.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 35
117. In November 2002, Argentina reported that a few technicalities needed to be sorted out before
the issue was completely resolved.
Plant Health
41. 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: Not reported
118. 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 further
information from Cuba on this issue.
CONCERNS RAISED BY CUBA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 48 European Communities — Pesticide and antibiotic limits  in honey (Directive 96/23)
CZECH REPUBLIC
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC
Food Safety
42. 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: Czech measure lifted in October 1999.
119. 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 36
120. 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 scientific
justification.  The Czech Republic indicated that the exchange of information would take place before
a mission of Czech experts to Thailand in the near future.
121. 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,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.
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Other Animal Health Concerns
43. 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: EC satisfied with Czech clarifications.
122. 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 vete rinary authorities.  In
February 2001, the Czech Republic indicated that the European Communities had accepted its
clarifications.
Plant Health
44. 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: Second active ingredient approved, imports from EC resumed.
123. 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 37
124. 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 the
issue, notably within the framework of the European Association Agreement, were far from
exhausted.
125. 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.
CONCERNS RAISED BY CZECH REPUBLIC
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States — Import restrictions
affecting BSE-free countries
ECUADOR
CONCERNS RAISED BY ECUADOR
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Plant Health Concerns
Item 72 European Communities  – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/131 regarding cut flowers
Item 132 Turkey –  Restriction on banana imports
EGYPT
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EGYPT
Food Safety
45. 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: Formal consultations requested by Thailand.
126. 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 theG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 38
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.
CONCERNS RAISED BY EGYPT
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Plant Health Concerns
Item 73 European Communities  – Measures on imports of Egyptian potatoes
EL SALVADOR
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Other Animal Health Concerns
46. 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.
127. 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 to
the appropriate authorities.  In November 2000, Uruguay reported that the issue that been resolved.
ESTONIA
CONCERNS RAISED BY ESTONIA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States- Import restrictions
affecting BSE-free countriesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 39
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Food Safety47. European Communities – Restrictions on shellfish
Raised by: Indonesia
Supported by:
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 127-128), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,
paras. 183-184)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
128. In June 2002, Indonesia raised concerns regarding an EC prohibition on shellfish from
Indonesia due to biotoxic residues that had been applied for two years.  The three gulfs in Indonesia
which were not free of biotoxins were closed to shellfish fishing.  Indonesia had responded to aquestionnaire from the European Communities a nd was waiting for the European Communities to
send an inspection team.
129. The European Communities indicated that given th e high risks associated with shellfish, it
accepted products only from countries with an approved sanitary programme which included control
procedures for the maritime production area.  The information provided by Indonesia had given theimpression that controls were not mandatory, and in March 2001 the European Communities had sent
a further questionnaire.  The European Communities indicated that as soon as the reply to the
questionnaire was received, an EC evaluation team would visit Indonesia.
130. In November 2002, Indonesia reported that an EC inspection team had visited Indonesia in
October 2002.  Indonesia was of the view that the resolution of the problem would have a verypositive effect on the fish industry in Indonesia, especially at the production level.  The European
Communities commended Indonesia for all the efforts that the country had made to meet the safety
requirements set out in EC legislation, and hoped that further progress would permit resolution of the
problem.
48. European Communities – Pesticide and anti biotic limits in honey (Directive 96/23)
Raised by: Cuba
Supported by:
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27/Corr.1, para. 130), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,
para. 178)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
131. Cuba indicated that it had sought bilateral consultations with the European Communities on
pesticide residues in honey.  The European Communities confirmed that it was examining a plan
submitted by Cuba for residue analysis, and would continue to pursue this bilaterally.
132. In November 2002, Cuba reported that progress had been made in bilateral consultations with
the European Communities on regulation EC 96/93 setting out residue limits for imported honey.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 40
49. European Communities - Regulations on genetically modified food and feed
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Argentina, Canada, Israel, Jordan, Taipei, China, Singapore, Egypt
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 40-44), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.
45-56)
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/ N/EEC/6 and 7, G/SPS/N/EEC/149
Solution: Not reported
133. 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 SPS
Agreement, 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 ECregulation was not consistent with the TBT Agreement.  Argentina sought clarification as to whether
the labelling requirements extended to pharmaceutical products for human or animal use.
134. 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 otherkey issues were traceability and labelling. The labelling of pharmaceuticals containing GM
ingredients was covered by different legislation.  The European Communities stated that discussions
should continue in the TBT Committee.
135. In March 2002, the United States noted that the EC measure notified as G/SPS/N/EEC/149,
would require a lengthy food safety review for all bi otech foods, and for the first time, biotech feeds,
which would also need to be labelled.  Products already authorized for food or feed use within the
European Union would have to be re-authorized w ithin nine years of their first placement on the
market.  The stated objective of this regulation was to protect health, environment and consumers and
to prevent deceptive practices.  However, the proposed regulation failed to distinguish the protection
of health and the environment from perceived consumer desires.  The regulation would be more trade
restrictive than necessary and could create substantial difficulties for countries which imported US
agricultural products for processing and further export, without addressing the identified concerns andpotential hazards.  The United States suggested that  without affordable testing and enforcement, the
proposed regulation left room for fraud, and the European Commission should examine the feasibility
of implementing the regulation, and analyze its potential regulatory impact.
136. The United States further noted that the new EU Food Authority (EFA) would undertake the
risk assessments for biotech food and feed, and provide technical and scientific information.  But theEuropean Commission could propose an outcome inconsistent with the risk assessment or other safety
and technical information considered by EFA.  This left room for political interference of the type that
had led to the existing moratorium on the approval of biotech products.  Furthermore, the EC
legislation set a "no risk" level which could effectively block the regulatory process since no product
could ever be guaranteed to have "no risk".
137. Canada believed that these proposed regulations fell within the scope of the SPS Agreement,
and the primary concern of Canada was that certain elements of these proposals lacked the needed
scientific basis.  Argentina supported the US and Canadian statements.  Israel expressed concern with
the trend of Members' requiring traceability and mandatory labelling for biotech food and feed
products, a requirement not based on scientific information, and hoped that Members could find lesstrade restrictive measures to address their concerns.  Jordan supported the consideration of the safety
of GM products on the basis of risk assessment as provided in the SPS Agreement.  RequirementsG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 41
imposed on processed products would result in unjustified costs that affected the competitiveness of
products, and resulted in greater restrictions on developing countries.   Egypt supported the statements
of the United States and Jordan.  Singapore requested the European Communities to take account of
all the concerns raised to ensure that the implementation of the regulations did not impose a disguised
restriction on trade, particularly for countries which processed and re-exported goods imported from
the United States.
138. Chinese Taipei stated that safety assessment of all GM products should be based on scientific
evidence to ensure that the products were as safe as their conventional counterparts.  Members should
work together in particular to strengthen risk  communication.  Chinese Taipei considered that an
appropriate labelling scheme was necessary to respect consumers' right to know and to choose, and
had introduced voluntary labelling in January 2001.  Mandatory labelling would be applied in three
phases starting in January 2003.
139. The European Communities recalled that these regulations had also been notified under the
TBT Agreement, and that the TBT Committee had held detailed discussions at the technical level the
previous week.  The European Communities believed that a large part of these proposals fell within
the scope of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, but had notified these measures also under the SPS
Agreement because many Members had expressed interest in the SPS Committee.  The time-period to
allow Members to submit comments also in response to the SPS notifications had been extended.  Thecomments received had been very similar to thos e received in response to the TBT notification, and
the European Communities subsequently circulated its response to comments received about both
notifications.
140. The European Communities further reported that the draft regulation had been adopted by the
EC College of Commissioners and sent to the EU  Parliament and the EC Council for their final
decisions.  The comments received by the EC Comm ission, as well as the responses to these, would
be provided to the EC member States, the EC C ouncil and Parliament.  It was unclear how long the
process would take and when any decisions might be made.  The European Communities noted that
the EFA would be a scientific body with responsibility to do independent risk assessment;  its advice
would be sent to the EC Commission and Council for the appropriate risk management decisions.
This procedure was consistent with the Codex guidelines, since it was not appropriate for the risk
assessment body to also make the risk management decisions.
50. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/ N/EEC/150 on traceability and labelling of
genetically modified organisms and food and feed
Raised by: United States, Canada, Argentina
Supported by: Argentina, Australia,
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ras. 57-62), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,
paras.95-96)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/150, G/SPS/N/EEC/149,  (G/SPS/GEN/354),
G/SPS/GEN/337 and 338
Solution: Not reported
141. The United States specified that the EC traceability requirement was to apply to all biotech
food and feed products at all stages of placing the product on the market.  The stated objective was to
facilitate control of labelling claims, environmental monitoring and control of the product.  Food
processors would be obliged to maintain specific information at each stage of placing the product on
the market, including details as to whether the product contained or was produced from biotech
products.  As a general rule, if a product contained ingredients consisting of biotech products orproduced from biotech events, these must be identified.  This included products made from but notG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 42
containing biotech products, such as soybean oil.  The United States believed that this proposal would
be expensive to implement, but would not be enforceable nor would it achieve its stated objectives.
142. The United States was further concerned that the measure was not targeted at health risks, and
applied to products already approved for use within the European Communities.  Traceback systems
for food safety had been effectively used to recall food in the United States in response to health
problems, based on batch and lot numbers on packages.  However, the proposed traceability systemwould be applied across-the-board to products whose safety had already been assessed.  Before
adopting the measure the United States urged the European Commission to assess the feasibility of
applying the measure reliably and accurately; consider less trade restrictive means to achieve the
objectives and evaluate the regulatory impact of the proposal.
143. Australia indicated that it had submitted detailed written comments that questioned the
scientific basis for the EC measures, the international standards to be used, and the nature of the risk
assessment underpinning the EC measures.  Australia also questioned whether a less trade-restrictivemeasure could be used, and why the traceability system for GM foods differed substantially from that
for other foods.  Argentina shared the concerns raised by the United States and Australia.
144. Norway indicated doubts as to whether the SPS Agreement was relevant to the issue of
GMOs and added that Norway strongly believed that labelling and traceability were not contrary to
WTO obligations.  The EC regulations took account of the Codex, the Cartagena Protocol and theOECD guidelines.  According to the Codex guide lines, food labelling should be used to avoid
misleading or confusing the consumer with regard to the true nature of a food.  Consumers' distrust in
food products would be greater if labelling and traceability were not required.  Norway believed that
the EC measure addressed a legitimate objective that was not excessive in relation to its purpose.
Cyprus stated his country's support of the EC  position regarding information to consumers.
145. The European Communities stated that all comments would be considered and communicated
to the appropriate bodies.  Current labelling requirements in the European Communities required
information on ingredients included in food products;  all that was added in terms of labelling was to
ensure the inclusion of GM products within the general requirements.  There were four objectives of
traceability:  (1)  to recall products in case of an unforeseen problem;  (2) to monitor potential risksfor the environment;  (3)  to control the accuracy of information provided on the label;  and (4)  to
inform consumers about what they ate and to avoid deceptive practices.  The EC Commission
considered that these four objectives were primar ily related to the TBT Agreement, and had notified
this proposal to the SPS Agreement only for transparency.
146. Canada observed that one of the stated objectives of the proposed regulation was to provide a
high level of protection of human health.  Canada accepted that consumers had the right to know
many things, but found troublesome that these regulations focussed on products made from GM
products but not on products made with GM processing aids, even when there might be traces of the
processing aids left in the product.  Several industries in Europe used GM processing aids.  The
selective focus was also troubling in that consumers did not need to be informed if products were
derived from mutagenesis, another form of genetic alteration.   The focus of the EC regulations was
overly specific and selective.  Furthermore, the mandatory nature of the traceability system createdproblems especially for enforcement.  Canada noted that no international standard existed in this area;
the Biosafety Protocol was not yet in effect and neith er it nor the OECD guidelines were referred to in
the SPS Agreement.  Canada looked forward to a scientific assessment of the needs, challenges and
benefits of the proposed mandatory traceability system.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 43
147. In November 2002,  Argentina drew attention to  the 21 questions for which his country was
seeking a written response from the European Communities (G/SPS/GEN/354).  Argentina enquired
as to whether the latest version notified by the European Communities included the amendments
made by the European Parliament.  The European Communities noted that they had received the
questions from Argentina at a late date, and would provide answers to the questions in writing.  The
European Communities usually notified a draft text to the WTO to allow Members enough time tocomment while the proposed regulation was being circulated in the Parliament and Council.
Discussions were still underway in these two bodies and as soon as a final regulation was adopted it
would be notified to the SPS Committee for information.
51. 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: Not reported
148. 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 beaffected.  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 requested
waivers from the EC directive.  Once the planned technical assistance had been carried out, adequateMRLs 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 discontinued
substances, the MRLs were set at detection levels; this was international practice.  The European
Communities would consider Côte d'Ivoire's request.
52. 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: Not reported
149. 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 with
Germany a problem regarding German law which restricted residues of TBZ and Imazalil in citrusjuices 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 44
53. 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), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26,
paras. 134-136),  June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, para. 132)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/100
Solution: Not reported
150. 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 believed
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-genotoxic
carcinogen 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 proposedCommission 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.
151. 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 byJECFA in March 2002.
152. 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 of50 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.
153. In March 2002, the European Communities reported that the Scientific Committee had re-
evaluated the potential toxicity of 3-MCPD, and had concluded that the risks were not as high as
initially believed.  A full evaluation of the toxi city of 3-MCPD was underway, pending receipt of
additional information; in particular regarding exposure levels.  The results of this study were
expected for July 2002, at which time the EC requirement would be re-examined in light of the results
of this study as well as of the JECFA review.
154. The representative of Codex noted that the Codex Committee on Food Additives had the
previous week discussed the subject of chloropropanols, substances which could occur in hydrolizedvegetable proteins and soy sauces.  JECFA had determined that the level of chloropropanols could be
controlled if the levels of 3-MCPD were limited, and had developed recommended daily intake levels.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 45
On this basis, the Food Additives committee was proceeding to develop maximum residue levels for
3-MCPD for commodities of major trade interest.
155. In June 2002, the European Communities confirmed that 3-MCPD had been re-evaluated and
found to be carcinogenic but not genotoxic, so the ALARA ("as low as reasonably achieveable")
principle would no longer be applied.  However, the European Communities was seeking the
necessary information . on exposure of consumers to 3-MCPD and other chloropropanols so that theScientific Committee could undertake a risk assessment.
54. 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: Not reported
156. 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 severalcountries had not notified their bans.  The European Communities reserved its right to take action
with regard to unjustified trade barriers.
157. 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 appreciatedthe 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 Belgian
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.
158. 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 anintergovernmental group prepare a code of practice on animal feed.  The European Communities
added 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.
159. 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 applyunnecessarily strict measures.  The European Co mmunities looked forward to receiving answers to
the questions it had raised in G/SPS/GEN/123/Add.3.
160. 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, someMembers 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 46
55. 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: Not reported
161. 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 to
cover other food products such as pork, beef, poultry, fruits and vegetables.  The United States alsorequested 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.
162. 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 requiredthat 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 foods
which received a favourable opinion from the Scientific Committee for Food be included in thepositive list.  The United States had also requested information on how additional foods could be
added to the positive list.
56. European Communities - 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: Brazil reported in October 2001 that the emergency measures had been
lifted.
163. 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 fromBrazil.  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 ofstocks 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 solution
before the end of the year.
164. 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 47
57. European Communities - Measure on establishm ents operating in the 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: Not reported
165. 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 intermediaries
operating 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.
166. 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 was
establishing 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 feed ingstuffs for farm animals, not to pet food.  The
European Communities clarified that by the end of 1998, EC member States must provide theCommission 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.
167. 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.
168. 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).G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 48
58. 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 on behalf
of 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), March2001 (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), March 2002
(G/SPS/R/26, para. 140), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 38-39), November
2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 175)
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: Maximum levels for some products and sampling procedures revised.
Bolivian differences reported as resolved in November 2002.
169. 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 onFood 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 proposed
measure.
170. 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.
171. 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.
172. 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 riskassessment, 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 49
173. 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.
174. In November 1998, the Chairman informed the Committee about bilateral consultations
between Bolivia and the European Communities which he had been requested to facilitate.  TheChairman reported that the discussions had been very fruitful, and had helped Bolivia to better
understand 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.
175. 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 hadbrought 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 through
a rapid procedure.  In response to other Members, the European Communities indicated that there hadbeen 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.
176. 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.
177. 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 fromneeded improvements in the production chain and the equipment used.  A project to address these
issues had been included in the EU Aid Programme.
178. 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 had
been meeting EC aflatoxin levels, and at least three private laboratories were equipped to carry outaccurate tests.  The European Communities remained willing to discuss technical difficulties and to
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 hadtaken 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 50
179. 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 takenplace prior to the entry into force of the measure, and that expected trade concerns had not
materialized. 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.
180. In March 2002, Bolivia indicated that there had been no progress on the issue.  The European
Communities reported that it had agreed to accept pre-shipment certification from accredited
laboratories in Bolivia in order to avoid costly sampling of the product upon arrival in Europe.
However, no further information had been provid ed by Bolivia regarding the accreditation of
laboratories nor a proposal for the pre-shipment certificate.  Nonetheless, shipments of Brazil nuts
from Bolivia met all of the EC's requirements, a nd the quantity of shipments continued to grow.
181. In June 2002, Bolivia noted that although the larger Bolivian exporters were able to meet the
EC requirements at considerable costs and difficulties, smaller exporters could not fulfill the EC's
requirements.  Bolivia requested information on the manner in which the EC requirements for a
quality control system were being applied.  The European Communities stressed again that no
consignments of Brazil nuts from Bolivia had been blocked due to aflatoxin.  In fact, both the volumeand value imported from Bolivia had increased in recent years.  The EC Scientific Committee for
Food had identified aflatoxins as among the most carcinogenic and mutagenic substances known, and
intake had to be reduced to the lowest levels possible.  Although the European Commission had
agreed to accept certification from authorized Bolivian laboratories, Bolivia had not provided the
necessary information.
182. In November 2002, Bolivia reported that a mutually agreeable solution to this problem had
been reached.
59. 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/54
Solution: Measures revised.
183. 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 countrieshad 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 hasG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 51
rarely proved significant and authorities should seek means of dealing with it other than by applying
an embargo on importation".
184. 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 severe
economic effects on the Tanzanian economy, and that according to the SPS Agreement, Membersshould 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.
60. European Communities – Restrictions on the importation of fruits and fruit juices
Raised by: Brazil
Supported by: Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Uruguay
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 28-31)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/355, G/SPS/N/EEC/160
Solution: Not reported
185. Brazil raised concerns regarding the European Communities Directive 2002/71/CE, published
on 19 August 2002, which established new maximum levels for dimethoate residues in and on cereals,
foodstuffs of animal origin and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables.  Brazilnoted that the EC directive would have the effect of banning Brazilian orange juice from the European
market and requested the European Communities to review the directive, taking into account all
scientific information available.  Bilateral discussions held on the previous day had been fruitful and
Brazil requested a copy of the EC's scientific studies as soon as possible.  Brazil noted that the issue
of MRLs for dimethoate would be reconsidered by Codex at its meeting in June 2003, and requestedthe European Communities to suspend the implementation of this directive pending to a full
assessment of the situation.  Brazil also requeste d the European Communities not to apply the same
approach in the re-evaluation of 320 active substa nces that was now underway.  Argentina, Bolivia,
Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Uruguay supported the arguments made by Brazil, in
particular, the need for scientific justification for maximum residue levels (MRLs), and expressed
concern regarding the implications for developing country exports.
186. The European Communities stated that the document put forward by Brazil had not yet been
discussed in Brussels.  Dimethoate was already under evaluation by the European Communities and
was one of the several hundred plant protection products which was being reassessed for its safety to
the environment, animal and public health.  The decision to establish a limit of analytical detection
had not been lightly taken, but the scientific evidence suggested that the existing MRL was inadequate
to provide for an appropriate level of health protection.  A number of years ago a recommendationhad been made to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues to withdraw the MRL for dimethoate.
Under the circumstances the European Communities had considered it necessary to adopt this
measure, although this was not a popular decision because this substance was used by a range of EC
growers of citrus and other fruit products, and they  were being obliged to withdraw its use.  The
measure had been notified (G/SPS/N/EEC/160) and that comments had been received and taken into
account from a number of countries, including Brazil.  The fears expressed by several countries over
the impact of the ongoing evaluation of a range of  other active substances would be communicated to
the appropriate authorities.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 52
61. European Communities (Belgium) - Measures regarding canned tuna in oil
Raised by: Philippines
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, paras. 87-88), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26,
para. 44)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
187. 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 some products had to be
withdrawn  from sale and offered to pursue the matter on a bilateral basis with the Philippines.  In
bilateral discussions, Belgium transmitted, for consid eration by the Philippines, information that in
Belgium's view provided a basis for its action to  withdraw the subject products from sale.  The
Philippines reiterated its objection to this action, which it considered was taken without sufficient
legal basis.
62. European Communities (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: In July 2001, the United States indicated that it was not experiencing any
problems, and was continuing to monitor the situation.
188. 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 was
currently being discussed in Brussels.  Argentina observed that the problem was not one ofharmonization, but of national treatment.
189. 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 Spain
came from outside the European Communities.  Since Spain had a particularly high consumption ofthe products in question, this had to be taken into account in addition to WHO recommendations.
190. 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.3
Page 53
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to TSEs
63. European Communities – 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: Not reported
191. 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, Canadawas 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 measuresto 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 forcountries classified in category one (presence of BSE unlikely), but neither Canada nor the United
States were in this category.
64. European Communities – 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:  Not reported
192. 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 be
determined 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 theinformation 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 54
193. 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 EC
Scientific 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 incubationperiod 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 and
provide information.  Knowledge about this disease should be shared to minimize trade effects where
possible.
65. European Communities – 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), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 31-32)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/256, G/SPS/GEN/264
Solution: Not reported
194. 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 EuropeanCommunities 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 restriction
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 vegetablemeals, which could also be mixed with meat and bone meal (MBM) in feed.  In addition, MBM
continued 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).
195. 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 hadconcluded 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 European
Communities 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 beenprohibited, 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.
196. 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 itsrestrictions 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 consistentG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 55
with 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 of
particular products and countries.  Iceland objected strongly to the EC measures which weretantamount to an import ban on fishmeal for animal feed.
197. 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.  Therepresentative of the European Communities questioned claims that the EC regulations had an adverse
impact on trade.
198. In March 2002, Peru stated that there was a lack of political will on the part of the European
Communities to reach a solution to this problem.  Fishmeal posed no risk of BSE for human or animal
health, but the EC measure created doubts among other countries, which resulted in a negative impacton fishmeal trade.  Furthermore, as the EC measure had been extended indefinitely, it could no longer
be justified as a provisional measure.
199. The European Communities noted that the measure was maintained due to demonstrated cases
of cross-contamination detected through the EC's  detection system.  One tool which could help
resolve this issue was a reliable test which could distinguish mammalian meals from fishmeal.Unfortunately, although under development, such a test would not be available in the near future. The
European Communities requested Peru to provide evidence of trade disruption as a result of the EC
measure, as no disruption was apparent in EU trade statistics.
66. European Communities – 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: Not reported
200. 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 did
not recognize the animal health status of supplying countries.  The European Communities stressedthat 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 56
67. European Communities – 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: Not reported
201. 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 to
achieve 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 anapplication 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.
4
202. In March 1998, the United States reiterated that 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.
203. 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 forceuntil 1 January 1999.  In the meantime, member States had introduced a number of measures.  The EC
Commission was also submitting new legislation for approval, taking into account the OIE
classification of countries with respect to BSE.
204. 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.
                                                     
4 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.3
Page 57
68. European Communities – 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: In October 2001, Brazil reported that the European Communities had lifted
its restrictions in June 2001.  US concern ongoing.
205. 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 scientific
justification.  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.
206. 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.
207. 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 a
risk 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 thematter bilaterally.  In March 2000, Brazil and the European Communities made a joint
communication announcing that constructive consultations had taken place, and that the European
Communities would evaluate the relevant documentation provided by Brazil.
208. 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 ECsafety systems.  Despite continuing efforts of US regulatory authorities and industry, the European
Communities had not agreed to accept equivalence based on export certificates issued by US
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 Communitiesstated 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 58
209. 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 twopoints, where compliance with additional requirements must be certified.  Since December 2000, the
only 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.
210. 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.
69. European Communities (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: Not reported
211. 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 delayednotification of the French measure in question.  The measure had been based on discussions and
recommendations at the EC Commission level, reco mmendations by the WHO, as well as parallel
scientific discussions in the United Kingdom and France.
212. 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 ontrade 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.
213. 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.3
Page 59
Other Animal Health Concerns
70. 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: Not reported
214. 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 before
the end of December 2000.  The results of the re-examination would be shared with Members, as wellas 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.
71. 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: Not reported
215. 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 be
contaminated 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 ofavailable 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 for
introducing such criteria.
216. 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 difficulties
in 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 60
Plant Health
72. European Communities - Notification  G/SPS/N/EEC/131 regarding cut flowers
Raised by: Ecuador, Israel
Supported by: Kenya
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 45-48), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,
para. 179)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/131, G/SPS/GEN/278
Solution: Not reported
217. 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, special
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 EuropeanCommunities 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 byMembers, the proposed date of entry into force of the draft amended regulation had been deferred.
218. In November 2002, Israel expressed concern with EC Regulation 2002/36/EEC.  While Israel
appreciated that the European Communities had modified and delayed the entry into force of the
proposed revision until April 2003, Israel was of the view that until the European Communities had
finalized its pest risk assessment the new regulation should be a temporary, not a permanent, measure.Israel was further concerned that the European Communities was not taking measures to control pests
already established in the EC member States from spreading to new areas, and requested consultations
with the European Communities and other interested Members. Kenya also expressed hope that a
solution would be found to the problem.  The European Communities replied that the question was
complex and went beyond a simple matter of the use of the precautionary principle.  The ambitious
pest eradication measures of the European Commun ities should not be undermined by imports.  The
European Communities agreed to bilateral consultations with Israel and Kenya.
73. 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: Not reported
219. 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 be
suspended if five interceptions of the bacterium occurred during the 2000-2001 import season.  Egyptbelieved 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 inG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 61
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.
74. 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: Not reported
220. 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 an
international 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.
221. 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 ECRegulatory 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.
75. 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: Measure revised in 1998, problems persisting.
222. 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 Africa
was free from citrus canker.  The European Communities noted that it was preparing a response to theArgentine 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 monitoringG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 62
requirements in the exporting country, treatment and certification. The European Communities
considered that its measures were based on science and minimized trade effects.
223. 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.
224. 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.
76. 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: Not reported
225. 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 fruit
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.
77. European Communities (Spain)- Phytosanitary regulations
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 97-98), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para.
42)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
226. Argentina expressed concerns about the difference between phytosanitary regulations in the
Canary Islands and the European Communities, particularly as regarded apple and pear imports.  As
Argentina 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 tothe 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 European
Communities stated that it would provide Argentina with a bilateral reply in due course.
227. In March 2002, Argentina stated that certain points had been cleared up in bilateral
consultations with the European Communities and Spain and that any further progress would be
reported to the Committee.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 63
Other Concerns
78. European Communities - Agricultur al biotechnology approval process
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Canada, Argentina, Australia, Philippines
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 102-105), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26,
paras. 33-35), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/ 27, paras. 56-57), November 2002
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 69-72)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
228. 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 was
concerned 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 orprotein, while not requiring similar controls on products that could present equal risk but were
produced 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 lackedscientific basis.  Furthermore, the proposed regulations were fundamentally unworkable, as
demonstrated by the one per cent threshold for the adventitious presence of GMOs.
229. 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.
230. In March 2002, the United States reported that no progress had been made on the EC approval
system despite statements by various Commission officials.  The de facto moratorium had resulted in
the loss of over $200 million per year in US agricultural exports.  New information given by
Commission officials in February 2002 that the approval process would be restarted later in 2002 was
welcome.  Frustration in US commercial and political circles continued to increase.  While the United
States welcomed the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority, this did not address the
fundamental problem of individual EC member St ates holding the approval process hostage to
political concerns, with disregard for science and sound regulatory decision-making.  Canada
supported the US comments and noted that the March 1998 EC moratorium represented a de facto ban
on a wide range of products.  As such it violated not just the SPS Agreement, but also Article XI of
the GATT.  Argentina echoed the concerns expressed by the United States and Canada.
231. The European Communities noted the absence of procedures at the international level for
approval of these types of products.  The Europe an Communities was following closely the work of
the Codex ad hoc Taskforce on Biotechnology.  Considerable efforts had been made to put together a
consistent body of legislation to set up an authorization procedure for products resulting from
biotechnology, with the aim of giving the producer legal certainty and transparency.  The newlyG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 64
established EC Food Safety Authority was responsible for risk assessment and risk communication,
but further time was needed to complete work by the European Parliament and the member States.
232. In June 2002, the United States indicated their frustration with the situation and noted that it
was considering what steps to pursue.  Canada observed that the EC moratorium essentially operated
as a ban on imports of certain products for over four years, without any scientific basis.  The
moratorium resulted in trade disruptions and di scrimination based on production methods without
regard to the assessment of risks.  Canada consider ed the EC moratorium to be inconsistent with the
SPS Agreement and the GATT, and requested the European Communities to put in place a science-
based approval process, as well as to consider alternative measures.  The European Communities
replied that the matter was following political procedures as previously described.  At this time, the
European Parliament was considering the matter, and the Council of Ministers should examine the
documents in the coming months.  Internal procedures had to be followed to apply the proposed
Directive.
233. In November 2002, the United States stated that the EC moratorium had resulted in
approximately 1 billion dollars loss of US expor ts to the European Communities.  Even senior
European Commission officials had publicly stated that the moratorium was illegal.  The United
States indicated that despite the recent adoption of EC Directive 01/18, the moratorium remained in
place and trade continued to be blocked.  The United States was of the view that the Commission hadthe authority and the power to act in the face of this illegal moratorium and it had chosen not to do so.
The Commission's failure to take action on this issue was a matter of growing concern to the United
States.  Canada shared the concerns expressed by the United States and regretted the inability of the
European authorities to take steps to ensure that EC member States met their SPS obligations.  Canada
called upon the European Communities to lift the moratorium as soon as possible.
234. Australia supported the views expressed by the United States and Canada about the lack of
scientific basis for the EC moratorium.  Australia was also concerned about the EC related proposals
on genetically modified food and feed, and the tr aceability and labelling of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs).  Australia requested further information as to whether the European Communities
had conducted a science-based risk assessment for its traceability regulations or based its measure onan international standard.  The European Communitie s had confirmed in their previous responses that
the research undertaken had confirmed that those GM foods and GM plants and derived products so
far developed and marketed following usual risk assessment procedures had not shown any new risk
to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding, or
risks that were likely to put in danger the chosen level of health or environmental protection in theEuropean Communities.  Given this explanation, Australia requested further clarification as to how, in
the absence of an identifiable risk to human health, the proposed traceability system met SPS
requirements.
235. The Philippines shared the concerns expressed by the United States and reiterated his
country's position regarding traceability of GMOs.  The Philippines noted that the European
Communities had failed to demonstrate any scientific evidence that GMOs were not as safe as their
conventional counterparts, and that there were not less trade restrictive measures available to managethe risk.
236. The European Communities noted that the Commission and the EC member States remained
determined to put in place a regulatory framework to allow GMO and GM products to be marketed
freely within the European Communities and noted th at the progress had been made in that respect.
The European Communities requested patience and understanding on this very sensitive dossierwhich was being dealt with at the highest level within the European Communities.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 65
CONCERNS RAISED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 8 Australia and New Zealand – Import restrictions on cheese
Item 19 Brazil – Import requirements for wine
Item 25 Canada – Importation of cheese
Item 35 China –   Import ban on products of Dutch origin
Item 93 Japan's regulation on food additives
Item 112 Panama –  Restrictions on milk powder imports
Item 118 Poland –  Requirements for imports of milk and milk products
Item 134 United States –  Notification G/SPS/N/USA/133 on refrigeration and labelling
requirements for shell eggs
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 3 Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine semen, milk and milk products
Item 27 Canada –  Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE
Item 36 China –  Import requirements for cosmetics
Item 84 India – Import restrictions on bovine semen
Item 91 Israel – Notification G/SPS/N/ISR/2 on TSE-related import restrictions of live cattle
Item 124 South Africa — Prohibition on bone-in-beef imports from member States of the European
Communities
Item 136 United States  – Measures related to BSE
FMD Concerns
Item 152 Certain Members — FMD-related import restrictions
Item 96 Japan –  Measures regarding FMD
Other Animal Health Concerns
Item 5 Argentina – Temporary prohibition of fresh pork and products
Item 9 Australia – Restriction on pigmeat
Item 20 Brazil –  Imports  of live ostriches
Item 43 Czech Republic – Regulation concerning warehouses and silos
Item 85 India –   Restrictions on imports of horses
Item 113 Panama's restrictions on food products
Item 137 United States –   Restrictions on pigmeat
Item 138 United States – Regionalization in relation to animal health
Item 148 Venezuela – Import conditions for pork and meat products
Plant Health Concerns
Item 14 Australia — Notification on methyl bromide
Item 22 Brazil – Import requirements for seed potatoes
Item 37 China – Regulation on wood packaging material
Item 44 Czech Republic –Imports of Potatoes
Item 110 New Zealand  – Proposed import prohibition of commodity-country combinations of fresh
cut flowers and foliage
Item 123 Slovak Republic  – Import restrictions on potatoesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 66
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Item 140 United States — Import restrictions on potted pl ants from the European Communities
Item 142 United States  – Imports of clementines
Item 143 United States  – Import restrictions on rhododendrons in growing medium
THE GAMBIA
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE GAMBIA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 58 European Communities – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in
foodstuffs
HONDURAS
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Other Animal Health Concerns
79. Honduras – Import restrictions on chicken meat imports
Raised by: Costa Rica
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, Thailand,
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 22-27)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1., G/SPS/GEN/362, G/SPS/GEN/363,
G/SPS/N/HND/3
Solution: Not reported
237. Costa Rica reported that in March 2002, Honduras had applied import restrictions on poultry
meat from Costa Rica,  admitting imports of poultry meat only from countries that were free from
avian influenza, avian infectious laryngotracheitis, Newcastle disease and avian salmonellosis.  CostaRica recognized Honduras' efforts to improve it s sanitary situation, but questioned whether the
measure was scientifically justified and whether Honduras had carried out a relevant risk analysis.  In
this regard, it would be to the benefit of all if  Honduras shared its scientific evidence with other
members of the organization.  Honduras was trying to reverse the burden by insisting that Costa Rica
demonstrate its disease free status regarding these four avian diseases.  Costa Rica's avian healthstatus was in line with the parameters recognized by the OIE, and its poultry meat exports did not
constitute a risk for the avian health status of Honduras.  Costa Rica requested Honduras to respond to
the questions contained in G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1 and requested that Honduras lift the measure.
Argentina, Chile and Thailand supported the concerns expressed by Costa Rica.  Chile requested
information from the OIE on this issue, in particular concerning standards for the transmission ofdifferent avian diseases through fresh poultry meat.  Chile also requested a copy of the risk
assessment carried out by Honduras.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 67
238. Honduras explained the background to his country's decision to impose restrictions on
chicken meat imports from Costa Rica.  The Agriculture and Livestock Secretariat had developed a
national programme for the prevention, control and eradication of avian diseases, including avian
influenza, avian infectious laryngotracheitis, Newcastle disease and avian salmonellosis.  This
programme had been notified to all WTO members (G/SPS/N/HND/3).  In October 2001, Honduras
had notified that it had achieved free status for the four avian diseases mentioned above.  Hondurashad requested that Costa Rica, as well as other countries, provide the necessary documentation that
guaranteed equivalence between the exporting country's avian health status, as well as access for
technical experts to carry out the relevant inspections.  His authorities had not been able to determine
that the poultry health programmes of Costa Rica were equivalent because they had been unable to
carry out the relevant inspections and obtain the necessary technical information requested from Costa
Rica.  The scientific evidence requested by Costa Rica was contained in the OIE Bulletin, N°6, pages
810 to 815, and Honduras welcomed the updating of standards by the OIE.
239. The representative of the OIE stated that OIE standards existed for avian infectious
laryngotracheitis, avian salmonellosis, and Newcastle disease, and for the highly pathogenic form
only of avian influenza.  The OIE standards for avian infectious laryngotracheitis and avian
salmonellosis contained recommendations only for live birds, for day-old chicks, and for hatching
eggs but no recommendations for poultry meat.  In other words, at present there were no official OIEstandards for poultry meat for these two diseases, however these chapters had not been reviewed for
some time.  The lack of a standard concerning poultry meat could mean either that there were no risks
associated with trade in poultry meat for these diseases, or that the OIE had not come out with a
recommendation on poultry meat which meant that trading partners would be expected to negotiate
between themselves using risk analysis in order to reach science based conclusions.  In the absence of
an official OIE standard, the OIE had replied to a re quest from the Director of Animal Health in Costa
Rica that there was no scientific evidence indicating that avian infectious laryngotracheitis or avian
salmonellosis could be transmitted through poultry meat.  This was not an official OIE standard but a
scientific opinion from the OIE.  If there was sufficient trade disruption due to the lack of an OIE
standard for poultry meat for these diseases, the OIE would include updating these standards in itsfuture work programme.
Plant Health
80. 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: Honduras lifted its restrictions in 1997, and the United States considers the
concern resolved.
240. 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 would
attempt to find a rapid solution to the problem.
241. 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 68
HUNGARY
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HUNGARY
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to TSEs
81. Hungary - 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: Not reported
242. 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 on
certain 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 forveterinary import licenses for live cattle, fresh meats and non-heat-treated products of bovine origin.
Bovine semen was not subject to the import restrictions.
82. Hungary - Restrictions on  pork products
Raised by: Canada
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 31-32)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
243. 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 similar
disruption 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 of
frozen pork.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 69
CONCERNS RAISED BY HUNGARY
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 130 Turkey's ban on pet food imports —Request for inform ation from Hungary
FMD Concerns
Item 28 Canada and the United States —Import restrictions due to FMD
Item 131 Turkey – Import ban on livestock
Plant Health Concerns
Item 122 Slovak Republic --  Restrictions on imports of apples, pears and quinces
ICELAND
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ICELAND
Food Safety83. 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: Clarification provided
244. 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 70
INDIA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to TSEs
84. 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: Change of relevant regulations and expected solution reported in July 2001.
245. 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 received
from India, although there had been some bilateral and multilateral contacts.  India presented some
information to the EC delegate at that time.
246. 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 into
India.  India had prepared a questionnaire for its trading partners and was planning to carry out a riskassessment 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.
247. 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 riskassessment 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.
248. 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 preciseestimates of the risks of infectivity of various products including semen.
249. 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 received
from the OIE.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 71
250. 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.
251. 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.
252. 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 quickly
resolve the issue.  India indicated that the relevant regulations had been changed, and that the changes
would soon be notified.
Other Animal Health Concerns
85. 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: Not reported
253. 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 OIE
Code.
CONCERNS RAISED BY INDIA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 58 European Communities – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in
foodstuffsG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 72
INDONESIA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA
Food Safety86. Indonesia – Ban on hormones in animal production
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Mexico
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 83-86)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/17
Solution: Not reported
254. The United States indicated that the implementation of this regulation would effectively ban
the use of several growth hormones and there was no scientific evidence to support this measure.  US
regulatory agencies had been conducting research since the 1950s on the use and safety of approved
growth hormones.  A concensus had been reached regarding the safety of these hormones if used withgood veterinary practices.  The United States requested Indonesia to put forward scientific data in
support of its proposed ban.  In the event that no scientific data existed, the United States requested
Indonesia to reconsider this proposal as soon as possible.
255. Canada, supported by Australia and Mexico, expressed concerns regarding Indonesia's
apparent import ban on live cattle and beef derived from cattle treated with synthetic growthhormones.  A number of questions surrounding the risk-based nature of these measures were
highlighted, particularly given the precedence established in the WTO regarding measures prohibiting
growth hormones.  They requested Indonesia to indicate whether it had conducted a risk assessment
and to provide the details of the risk based rational for its measures.  The European Communities
noted that there was a WTO finding on the issue a nd that it intended to bring its legislation into
compliance with the ruling of the panel.  Much work had been undertaken in this regard and the
European Communities expected to soon be able to ensure that the EC ban was fully compatible with
the WTO.
256. Indonesia noted that his country had not yet implemented the regulation, but had notified to
Members the fact that they were going to amend the decree concerning classification of veterinary
drugs.  Although Indonesia had not yet banned horm one growth promoters, there were some reasons
to believe that growth hormones could be hazardous  to human health, due in part to the fact that
developed countries' consumption patterns were different to those in Indonesia.  Indonesia further
noted that the use of hormone growth promoters in poultry had been banned internationally.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 73
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to FMD
87. Indonesia – Import restrictions on dairy products
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 17-18), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras.
54-55)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
257. Argentina stated that as a result of the outbreak of FMD in 2001, Indonesia had banned
imports of milk products, inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and OIE guidelines.  The OIE Code
stipulated that milk products be accepted if the sanitary authority of the exporting country certified
that the necessary requirements had been introduced.  Indonesian had not provided the opportunity forthe Argentine National Agriculture and Food Quality and Health Service (SENASA) to certify the
requirements set forth by the OIE.  Indonesia indicated that import restrictions imposed on Argentina
due to FMD only applied to fresh milk.  Other dairy products, including skimmed milk, cream, butter,
cheese and yoghurt, were not restricted.  Restrictions on fresh milk were based on the fact that
Argentina was not listed by the OIE as a country with zones free of FMD.
258. In November 2002, Argentina indicated that some practical difficulties still impeded
Argentine dairy products, other than liquid milk, fr om entering Indonesia.  Indonesia reported that as
Argentina fulfilled the first provisions a ques tionnaire which would provided to them, Indonesia
would send an inspection team to Argentina.  Indonesia hoped that this would lead to a resolution of
the problem.
88. Indonesia - FMD restrictions
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 92-93) (see also #85 )
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
259. 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 been
lifted as of August 2001.  Indonesia looked forward to holding further bilateral discussions.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 74
Plant Health
89. 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:  Restrictions lifted on 26 October 2001.
260. 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 May
1996.  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.Indonesia, however, 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 held in
November 2000,  Indonesia had undertaken to review the information which New Zealand had
already provided.  Indonesia took not e of New Zealand's concerns, and clarified that it needed further
documentation supporting New Zealand's claim of fr eedom 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 acceptable resolution.
261. 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 NewZealand in the near future.  Indonesia hoped that the visit would result in an expeditious solution.
Indonesian officials visited New Zealand in May 2001 to review New Zealand's surveillance and
export assurance systems.  They verified that the fruit fly has been successfully eradicated.  Indonesia
agreed the requirement of cold treatment and Mediterranean fruit fly free production areas were no
longer necessary.  It advised that it would lift existing restrictions on the importation of fresh fruit
from New Zealand on 1 August 2001.  Indonesia noti fied (G/SPS/N/IDN/16) on 26 October 2001 that
it was lifting its restrictions on New Zealand fresh fruit effective from the date of notification.
90. 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: Not reportedG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 75
262. 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 to
enable 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.
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY INDONESIA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 47 European Communities – Restrictions on shellfish
Item 58 European Communities – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in
foodstuffs
Animal Health and Zoonoses
FMD Concerns
Item 95 Japan – Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top from Indonesia
ISRAEL
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to TSEs
91. 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: Not reported
263. 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 questions
in writing.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 76
92. 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: Issue resolved.
264. 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 notified
exporting 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 thatbilateral consultation were taking place and that progress had been satisfactory.  In November 2000,
Uruguay reported that the issue had been resolved.
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY ISRAEL
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 52 European Communities — Legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ)
Plant Health Concerns
Item 72 European Communities — Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/131 regarding cut flowers
JAPAN
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN
Food Safety
93. Japan's regulation on food additives
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by: United States
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 35-37)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
265. The European Communities indicated that a list of substances, including food additives,
aromas, food ingredients and extract solvents, were not formally authorized by Japanese law, which
could constitute barriers to food product exports to Japan.  Some of the additives had already been
authorized by Japan for other purposes.  The European Communities requested Japan to approve those
substances that had been evaluated by the European Communities on scientific grounds, and noted
that all of the substances had been evaluated at the international level by the scientific committee ofthe Codex Alimentarius Commission.  The European Communities reported that a number of bilateral
meetings had already taken place.  The United States shared the concerns expressed by the EuropeanG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 77
Communities and urged Japan to consider expedited approval for these food additives that were
commonly used and considered safe.
266. Japan stated that it had recently enacted a new policy for evaluating the safety and the
necessity of the use of food additives and for authorizing their use.  Japanese authorities were putting
together a list of food additives that were considered safe and necessary to use for certain foods.  The
use of  food additives varied from country to country depending upon customs and habits, and a
number of food additives authorized by the European Communities were not authorized in Japan and
vice versa.  Japan suggested further bilateral consultations on this issue.
94. Japan's amendment of the food sanitation law
Raised by: China
Supported by: Korea
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 40-42)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/84, G/SPS/N/JPN/86
Solution: Not reported
267. China raised concerns over Japan's amendment of the food sanitation law and the procedures
followed.  Japan's emergency notification (G/SPS/N/JPN/84), issued on 18 July 2002, indicated that
the amendment prohibiting the sale, manufacturing and import of specific food, food additives,
apparatus and container/packages when considerable amounts of foods were assumed not to be inconformity with the provisions of the Food Sanitation Law would enter into force on 7 September
2002.  A related emergency notification had been  made on 7 September 2002 (G/SPS/N/JPN/86).
China questioned the appropriateness of the use of emergency notifications, as Members could not
comment before the measure had been enforced.  China requested Japan to provide the scientific
evidence, including a risk analysis, that supported the measures taken.  Korea indicated that it hadrequested information on Japan's amendment on 3 September 2002, and were awaiting a response.
268. Japan indicated that they had already received comprehensive comments from China on the
amendment of the food sanitation law within the fr amework of the Trade Policy Review of Japan.
The use of the emergency notifications were in accordance with the recommended procedures for
transparency, however, Japan was prepared to consider the matter further on a bilateral basis.
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to FMD
95. 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), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 185-186)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
269. 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 wasconcerned 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 theG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 78
animal 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 and
roots did not present a risk.
270. 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 certain
misunderstandings had been cleared up.  Japan looked forward to receiving such information as was
necessary to resolve this problem.
271. In November 2002, Indonesia noted that the Japanese animal health inspection team had
carried out an FMD risk assessment in Indonesia in June 2002.  Indonesia recalled that the OIE had
recognized the country as FMD free without vaccination and requested Japan to take this into
consideration.  Japan stated that the issue could not be resolved until the risk assessment was
completed.  Further data had been sought from Indonesia in order to finalize the risk assessment.
96. Japan - Measures regarding FMD
Raised by: Argentina, European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 46), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.
15-17)
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/Notif.97.357
Solution: Not reported
272. 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 current
FMD-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 andwhether 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 to
the approval procedures regarding the import of vaccines for emergencies.  It was a precautionary
measure following the outbreak of FMD in Chinese Taipei in March 1997.  Argentina indicated itwould provide its questions in writing to Japan.
273. In March 2002, the European Communities stated that slow administrative procedures had
caused unjustified disruptions in the trade of several EC member States with Japan.  In spite of the
formal recognition by the OIE of EC member States as FMD free, Japanese procedures for
recognizing the FMD free status of these countries dragged on.  The European Communities notedthat they had done everything possible to meet the Japanese requirements and expressed
disappointment that Japan would not begin the re- opening process until after the official FMD free
declaration by the OIE on 19 September 2001.  The EC noted that the re-opening process itself was
extremely cumbersome and combined with delays in organizing a Japanese inspection mission, the
effect was unnecessary delay in reopening of the market.  Furthermore, the European Communitiesfelt that the use of questionnaires was only justified at the time of the outbreak, and that import
requirements should be made clear from the outset.  The representative of the European CommunitiesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 79
requested an indication of when Japan would recognize the EC FMD disease-free status.  Japan noted
that the risk assessment for FMD had been delayed due to late responses from France, Ireland and the
Netherlands.
Plant Health
97. Japan – Official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables
Raised by: United States and New Zealand
Supported by: Australia, European Communities
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 27-30), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras.
59-62)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/357
Solution: Not reported
274. The United States indicated that Japan continued to impose costly and unjustified quarantine
actions when pests were detected on imported US fruits and vegetables, even though the same specieswere commonly found in Japan.  In many instances these actions included treatment that damaged and
destroyed the commodity in question.  Japanese practices lacked a scientific basis and were
inconsistent with IPPC standards on official control and risk assessment for quarantine pests.  The
result was an arbitrary and unpredictable system facing US horticultural exports to Japan.  The United
States supported Japan's efforts to bring its plant laws into line with international standards and hopedthat bilateral technical discussions would result in the termination of unjustified requirements. The
European Communities supported the US statement.  New Zealand noted concerns with Japan's
continuing practice of fumigating consignments of New Zealand's fresh products, due to the
interception of pests that did not meet the definition of quarantine pests under the IPPC.
275. Japan recalled that during bilateral consultations with the United States in November 2001,
the United States had requested Japan to abolish fumigation upon detection of California red scale and
Fuller rose weevil in US produce, on the grounds that these were non-quarantine pests endemic in
Japan.  However, California red scale was under domestic control in Japan as a target pest of
forecasting programmes and was therefore subject to fumigation if detected at import inspection.
Fuller rose weevil had limited detection with only three points within Japan and was under
government-oriented control aimed at eradication.  It was not possible under these conditions to
exclude those species from quarantine pests.  Japan noted that they remained open to furtherconsultations.
276. In November 2002, New Zealand expressed concern with Japan's official control restrictions,
detailed in G/SPS/GEN/357.  New Zealand requested Japan to confirms that it would not take any
action, such as fumigation, on any pest found on imported produce if that pest was already present in
Japan but not under official control as defined by the IPPC.  The United States recalled its concernsover the basis and application of Japan's phytosanitary legislation, in particular with respect to
horticultural products that continued to face unjustified quarantine actions at Japan's ports of entry.
Even when Japan required no domestic quarantine treatment for the same species of pests, the
treatment imposed on imported produce included fumigation which in many cases ruined the
products.  The United States considered Japan's actions to be highly disruptive of trade.  Australia andthe European Communities expressed their concern regarding Japan's official control restrictions and
supported the statements made by New Zealand and the United States.
277. Japan recognized that the IPPC standards should be one of the basis in a possible future
quarantine system for Japan.  Japan was examining whether its appropriate level of protection could
be maintained by applying plant quarantine measures in line with the new IPPC definition, taking intoaccount Japan's climate and the large volume of imports into Japan.  A number of pests were presentlyG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 80
under study and although a final conclusion had not yet been reached, discussions were underway to
identify practical measures to reduce the effects of Japan's official control measures on international
trade.
98. 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), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 36-38), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.
52-53)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Consultations requested on 1 March 2002;  panel requested on 22 May 2002;
panel established 3 June 2002.
278. 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.  New
Zealand intended to engage Japan in further bilateral discussions on this issue.  Chile requested thatthe 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.
279. 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 bilateral
discussions 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.
280. In March 2002, the United States recalled that Japan’s quarantine restrictions prohibited apple
imports from orchards in which any fire blight had been detected and required: three annual
inspections of US orchards for the presence of fire blight, disqualification from export if fire blight
were detected in a 500-meter buffer zone around the orchard, and post-harvest treatment with
chlorine.  The United States considered that these restrictions were not consistent with Japan'sobligations under Article 11 of the GATT, or under the SPS Agreement.  The United States had
requested consultations under Articles 1 and 4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding on 1 March
2002.  New Zealand and the European Communities also expressed the view that Japan's restrictions
on apples were more trade restrictive than necessary and stated their interest in a resolution of this
issue.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 81
281. Japan explained that the risk from the entry of fire blight was very serious.  The United States
had not provided Japan with sufficient scientific evidence to amend its phytosanitary measures.  At a
bilateral expert meeting in October 2001, Japan had identified the data that was needed and Japan
hoped that the technical data would be provided by the United States so as to allow a resolution of this
issue.
282. In June 2002, the United States reported that his country had requested the establishment of a
dispute resolution panel with respect to Japan's measures related to fire blight.  New Zealand indicated
that Japan's measures lacked scientific justification and limited NZ exports of horticultural products.
New Zealand and the European Communities indicate d that their countries shared the US concerns
and would participate in the dispute resolution procedure as third parties.  Japan indicated that during
the bilateral consultations held following the US request, Japan had indicated its willingness to
consider relevant data submitted by the United States, however nothing had been provided.  Fire
blight was a serious plant quarantine disease which did not occur in Japan and which could severelydamage the production of apples, pears and other fruits.  Japan's measures were indispensable in order
to prevent the entry of fire blight, and were fully justified on the basis of scientific evidence.
99. 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: Dispute settlement (W/DS/76) - mutually satisfactory solution notified in
August 2001.
283. 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, Japan
continued 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 theSPS 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.  Japan
noted that bilateral efforts would continue in order to reach a solution.
284. 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.
100. 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: Not reportedG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 82
285. 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 had
flowed 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.
286. 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.
101. Japan - Amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law
Raised by: United States
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Chile, European Communities, New Zealand, Philippines
on behalf of 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: Not reported
287. 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-quarantine
pests, 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 aquarantine 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.
288. 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.
289. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with
Japan.
Other Concerns
102. 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: Not reported
290. 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 SPS
Agreement 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,G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 83
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.
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Food Safety
103. 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: Thailand's comments taken into account – measure amended.
291. 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 matterwith Korea. Korea asked for detailed information in writing.
292. 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-borne
listeriosis, which indicated that listeriosis had a very low incidence in Asia.  Korea responded that itsmeasure was not a ban, but that consignments had been rejected.
293. 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 bilateral
consultations 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 finaloutcome.
294. 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.3
Page 84
104. 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: 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.
295. 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.
296. 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.
297. In May 1996 Canada noted that although a formal understanding had been reached with
regard to some concerns regarding shelf life, prob lems 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.
298. 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.
299. 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.
300. 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 milkbefore the end of 1998.  In October 1997, Australia indicated that it had not received a satisfactoryG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 85
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.
301. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it considered the trade concern to be resolved
(G/SPS/GEN/265).
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to FMD
105. 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: Not reported
302. 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 replied
that 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.
Other Concerns
106. 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: Consultations under Dispute Settlement initiated (WT/DS3, WT/DS41);
mutually satisfactory solution found.
303. 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 international
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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 86
304. 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.
305. 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 these
concerns 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 thatalthough 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 US
concerns would be conveyed to the competent authorities in the capital.
306. 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.
LATVIA
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY LATVIA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States —Import restrictions
affecting BSE-free countries
MALAYSIA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA
Food Safety107. 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 and Singapore were resolved  in July 1999.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 87
307. 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.
CONCERNS RAISED BY MALAYSIA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 58 European Communities – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in
foodstuffs
MEXICO
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Issues related to FMD
108. 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: Not reported
308. 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 88
Plant Health
109. 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), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ra. 138), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27,
para. 131)
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:  Revised regulation published on 15 April 2002.
309. 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 no
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.
310. 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 pestafter another.  Mexico repeated that the requested information had not been provided.  Both countries
indicated consultations would continue.
311. 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 andact accordingly.  In July 1999, Thailand reported that it had handed over additional documents to
Mexico.  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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 89
312. 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.
313. 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 to
each of the comments would be published in the Official Journal before the final standard was
published.
314. 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.
315. 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 the
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 tofulfill 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.
316. 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.
317. In March 2002, Thailand noted that a bilateral meeting with Mexico on the matter had been
held earlier in the week.  Mexico reported that restrictions on milled rice from Thailand had beenlifted as of March 2001, however the publication of the modified regulation had been delayed but
would take place within 30 days.
318. In June 2002, Thailand informed the Committee that on 15 April 2002, Mexico had published
the revised regulation.  Thailand appreciated Mexico's cooperation on this matter.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 90
CONCERNS RAISED BY MEXICO
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 132 United States— Restrictions on melons
MOLDOVA
CONCERNS RAISED BY MOLDOVA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 121 Romania— SPS measures on animal products
NEW ZEALAND
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND
Plant Health110. 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), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 44)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/NZL/24, G/SPS/N/NZL/142
Solution: Proposed measures withdrawn
319. 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 the
past two years.  New Zealand would continue to  address the EC concerns on a bilateral basis.
320. In March 2002, New Zealand stated that the proposed measures had been withdrawn.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 91
CONCERNS RAISED BY NEW ZEALAND
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Plant Health Concerns
Item 89 Indonesia —Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit
Item 97 Japan —Official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables
NORWAY
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to FMD
111. 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: Import conditions clarified.
321. 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 was
solved.  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 twoMembers agreed to continue their consultations.
322. 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 these
requirements and looked forward to resuming its gelatin exports to Norway.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 92
PANAMA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA
Food Safety112. 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: Not reported
323. 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 theseproducts.  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 his
capital, and indicated the willingness of Panama to consult with the European Communities on this
matter.
324. 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 Communities
indicated that the Commission would study the answers and report back to Panama.
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Other Animal Health Concerns
113. Panama's restrictions on food products
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 195-196)
Relevant document(s):
Solution: Not reported
325. The European Communities stated that Panama had instituted a range of severe measures on
imports of animal products.  Although the law was intended to address risks related to FMD, BSE,
Newcastle disease and other exotic diseases, the European Communities considered the law to be
disproportionate and not science-based.  In addition, the measure had not been notified.  Panama
indicated that it hoped to be able to provide a prompt response.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 93
Plant Health
114. 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: Import restrictions removed in 1997, concern resolved.
326. 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.
327. 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).
Other Concerns
115. Panama's import licenses for agricultural products
Raised by: Canada
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para.26)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
328. Canada stated that high level meetings were underway regarding the automaticity of Panama's
import licensing procedures.  Panama stated that Canada's concerns were being considered by the
appropriate authorities.
PERU
CONCERNS RAISED BY PERU
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 65 European Communities — Restrictions on the use of fishmeal
Other Animal Health Concerns
Item 71 European Communities – Salmonella-related restriction on fishmeal importsG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 94
PHILIPPINES
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE PHILIPPINES
Food Safety116. Philippines – Certification of meat and dairy products
Raised by: Canada
Supported by: Australia, European Communities, Korea, New Zealand, United States
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 98-100)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/PHL/44
Solution: Not reported
329. Canada expressed concerns about the effects of the memorandum order MO7 from the
Philippines Department of Agriculture, noting that it would have serious effects upon its exports of
meat and dairy products.  While Canada did not quarrel with the requirement that imports be produced
in plants applying HACCP procedures and that there be a certification to this effect, it was not clearwhether Philippine producers were subject to similar requirements.  The requirement of a third party
independent certification was unwarranted and not the least trade restrictive option.  Canada's
governmental authority, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, was prepared to certify that exports to
the Philippines had been produced in HACCP compliant plants and there was no need for additional
certification by a third party.  The European Communities, Australia, Korea, New Zealand and theUnited States shared this concern.  The EC certification requirements already put a lot of emphasis on
HACCP compliance.  Australia felt that the Philippine's proposed measures were not in accordance
with SPS obligations.
330. The Philippines clarified that certification of HACCP compliance by third party auditors was
required in the light of several documented cases of contaminated products entering the country.  ThePhilippines was concerned that not all shipments came from well established HACCP compliant
plants.  The measures were not meant to replace or duplicate the exporting country's inspection
system but to complement it.  The Philippines believed that appropriate and sufficient time had been
provided to trading partners and foresaw no problem that trade restrictions might occur especially for
countries claiming to be HACCP compliant.  The Philippines indicated that HACCP was a universal
guideline approved and propagated by FAO and WHO.
Plant Health
117. Philippines - Notification on Chinese fruit imports
Raised by: China
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 141)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/PHL/35 and Add.1
Solution: Temporary ban lifted on the condition that those places identified as sources
of infested exports undertake treatment to effectively kill the insect
331. China reported that the Philippines had applied an emergency restriction on imports of fruit
from China, notified in G/SPS/N/PHL/35.  The not ification indicated that the measure was imposed
because codling moth had been detected in imports of certain fruits.  However, technical experts ofboth countries had re-identified the intercepted insect as peach fruit moth, a common pest.  On this
basis, the Philippines lifted the quarantine ban, but the addendum to the notification did not clarify the
mistaken identification of th e pest (G/SPS/N/PHL/35/Add.1).G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 95
332. The Philippines confirmed that further investigation had revealed that the intercepted insect
was not codling moth, but Carposina nipponensis, a species not previously known in the Philippines.
The Philippines had lifted the temporary ban on the condition that those places identified as sources of
infested exports would undertake treatment to effectively kill the insect.  This decision was reflected
in the addendum to the notification, although the Philippines agreed to further correct the information
provided in the notification, to avoid confusion and possible unnecessary restrictions on Chineseagricultural products by other Members.
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY THE PHILIPPINES
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 7 Australia — Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid
Item 61 European Communities (Belgium) — Measures regarding canned tuna oil
Item 58 European Communities— Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in
foodstuffs
Plant Health Concerns
Item 16 Australia— Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit
Item 23 Brazil —Import prohibition of coconut palms and related products
POLAND
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND
Food Safety118. 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: Not reported
333. 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 treatment
to 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 toengage in bilateral discussions on this measure.  Poland indicated that the EC request would be
considered.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 96
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to TSEs
119. 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), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.40-42)
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/N/POL/25, G/SPS/GEN/265, G/SPS/GEN/322
Solution: In June 2002, Poland noted that the regulation had been amended and
restrictions on gelatine from bovine hides removed
334. 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 BSE
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 knowledge.  Regarding different treatment of Switzerland, the
United Kingdom and Ireland, the new regulations had not yet been adopted by the PolishGovernment.  Poland committed to providing a response on the basis of written questions from
Switzerland.
335. 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 forproducts 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 United
Kingdom, 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.
336. In July 2001, the United States indicated that bilateral discussions on certification
requirements for bovine gelati n continued (G/SPS/GEN/265).
337. In June 2002, Switzerland stated that Poland continued to restrict imports of bovine semen
and gelatin from Switzerland although the OIE had concluded that bovine semen and gelatine did not
present a risk regardless of the BSE status of  the exporting country (G/SPS/GEN/322).  The
representative of the European Communities indicated that EC member States had similar concernsregarding Poland's measure.  The representative of the OIE clarified that Chapter 4 of the
International Animal Health Code recommended no restriction on bovine semen.  No BSE risk had
been identified from gelatin made exclusively from hides, however certain treatments were
recommended with respect to gelatin made from bones if the exporting country were not free from
BSE.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 97
338. Poland clarified that bovine semen had never been covered by the Polish regulation in
question.  Its restrictions on imports of several animal products from Switzerland had been notified in
G/SPS/N/POL/25.  Furthermore, there had just been further amendments to the regulation, and
restrictions on gelatine from bovine hides had been removed.  Poland announced its intention to notify
this new regulation.
Plant Health
120. 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: Not reported
339. 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 November
1998, the Chairman reported that he and the Secretariat had been requested to facilitate bilateralconsultations 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.
340. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with
Poland.
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY POLAND
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States —Import restrictions
affecting BSE-free countries
Plant Health Concerns
Item 123 Slovak Republic —Import restrictions on potatoesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 98
ROMANIA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA
Food Safety121. Romania –SPS measures on animal products
Raised by: Moldova
Supported by: China
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 35-37)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/334
Solution: Not reported
341. Moldova indicated that Romania had begun to impose EC requirements on imports of meat
and animal products although Romania did not meet these requirements domestically
(G/SPS/GEN/334).  As a result, meat, milk and egg exports from Moldova were in effect banned from
the Romanian market, which normally absorbed about 80 per cent of Moldova agricultural exports.Romania had not provided any scientific justification for its measure.  Its failure to notify the measure
meant that exporters had not had any time to adapt to the new requirements.  China expressed support
for the concerns expressed by Moldova and urged Romania to review its measures in this area.
342. Romania argued that the measure in question was a result of its harmonization with the
acquis communautaire  of the European Union, and was necessary to ensure consumer protection.
Romania stated that this was not a new SPS measure, so it had not been notified.  Nonetheless, the
Romanian Ministry of Agriculture was considering ways to address the difficulties posed to Moldova
from its implementation.
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY ROMANIA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 42 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States —Import restrictions
affecting BSE-free countries
SENEGAL
CONCERNS RAISED BY SENEGAL
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 58 European Communities— Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in
foodstuffsG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 99
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Plant Health122. 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: Hungary reported a mutually acceptable solution in October 2001.
343. 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 informationrequirements were extremely burdensome.  The measure appeared to be more restrictive than required
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 SlovakRepublic remained open to bilateral discussions.
344. 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 ofits 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 argumentsthat 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.
123. 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: Measure revised in March 1999, problems persisting.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 100
345. 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 that
problems 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.
346. 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 testing
requirements 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.
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States —Import restrictions
affecting BSE-free countries
SLOVENIA
CONCERNS RAISED BY SLOVENIA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States —Import restrictions
affecting BSE-free countriesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 101
SOUTH AFRICA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to TSEs
124. 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: Not reported
347. 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.
348. 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 for
bilateral discussions of the issue.
Concerns related to FMD
125. South Africa – Restrictions on beef and pork
Raised by: Brazil
Supported by:
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras 19-20), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para.
176)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Imports of meat and pork from Brazilian regions free of FMD authorized.
Problems remaining concerning administrative procedures for meat
products.
349. Brazil stated that in February 2002, South Africa had suspended imports of beef and pork
from Brazil, because FMD vaccination was practised there.  South Africa's import ban was not based
on the OIE standards nor on scientific evidence or risk assessment nor had the measure been notified.
Brazil requested South Africa to lift the ban and accept the risk mitigation procedures established byG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 102
the OIE.  South Africa indicated that they were committed to bilateral consultations with a view to
find a quick solution to the problem..
350. In November 2002, Brazil reported that South Africa had authorized imports of meat and pork
from Brazilian regions free of FMD.  Some difficulties remained regarding administrative procedures
for meat products, but were expected to be resolved soon.
SWITZERLAND
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SWITZERLAND
Food Safety126. 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: Not reported
351. 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 ratequota (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 formal
comments 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 measuredid 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.
352. 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 health
objective 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 discussingthe implementation of the Law, and questions and comments would be taken into account.
353. 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 103
Plant Health
127. 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: Not reported
354. 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.
CONCERNS RAISED BY SWITZERLAND
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 8 Australia and New Zealand— Import restrictions on cheese
Item 107 Malaysia and Singapore — Notifications related to dioxin
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 4 Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France,
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Spain, United States and others — Measures related to BSE
Item 119 Poland— Notifications on veterinary measures and measures on animal products
including gelatin
Item 135 United States —Import restrictions on meat and meat products
CHINESE TAIPEI
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI
Plant Health128. Chinese Taipei's policies  regarding quarantine and non-quarantine pests
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras 33-34)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reportedG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 104
355. The United States expressed concern that Chinese Taipei's Plant Production and Quarantine
Act did not distinguish between quarantine and non-quarantine pests which was detrimental to US
exports.  Chinese Taipei had agreed to amend this act, however this was expected to take some time.
In response, Chinese Taipei indicated that problems arose due to inconsistency between the Chinese
and English version of the Act.  His authorities had agreed to amend the Act to bring it into
conformity with the standards of the IPPC.
TANZANIA
CONCERNS RAISED BY TANZANIA
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 59 European Communities— Trade restrictions in response to cholera
THAILAND
CONCERNS RAISED BY THAILAND
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 42 Czech Republic— Prohibition of poultry meat  imports from Thailand
Item 45 Egypt— Restrictions on canned tuna
Item 53 European Communities— Import restrictions on soy sauce
Item 58 European Communities— Maximum levels for certain contaminants(aflatoxins) in
foodstuffs
Item 103 Korea— Import ban on frozen poultry
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Other Animal Health Concerns
Item 10 Australia— Import Restrictions on prawn and prawn products
Item 11 Australia— Notification G/SPS/N/AUS/72 on quarantine requirements for chicken meat
Plant Health Concerns
Item 15 Australia— Import restrictions on durian
Item 109 Mexico —Import prohibition of milled riceG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 105
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to FMD
129. Trinidad and Tobago - Restrictions on imports of pork sausages and other pork
products, fresh, cured or salted
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 32-34)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
356. Argentina reported that the health authoritie s from Trinidad and Tobago had provided two
responses regarding import requirements for Argentine pork products, fresh cured or salted.  The firstresponse indicated that imports of Argentine pork products were currently banned because of the
FMD outbreak that had occurred in 2001, and that imports would not be able to resume until the
health status of Argentina changed to that of a country free of FMD without vaccination.  The second
response stated that imports of pork products were allowed only from those countries that had FMD
free status without vaccination for at least three years before the date of export  These requirementswere stricter than the OIE Animal Health Code, lacked a scientific basis and were not proportionate to
the objectives pursued.  Argentina a lifting of the ban and copies of the scientific evidence that
justified the measure..
Trinidad and Tobago indicated that the issue of importation of Argentine pork products had been the
subject of ongoing bilateral consultations.  As a member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM),Trinidad and Tobago adhered to a regional policy for the importation of meat and meat products
according to which, in the event that an exporting country had experienced an FMD outbreak, imports
would only be allowed after disease-free status had been achieved without vaccination.  The regional
decision reflected consensus among member States.  These requirements were transparent and applied
in an equitable manner to all countries that had experienced FMD outbreaks. Trinidad and Tobago
reaffirmed the country's willingness to continue the bilateral process.
TURKEY
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to TSEs
130. Turkey's ban on pet food imports
Raised by: Hungary
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 6), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 129-130)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/316, WT/DS256/1
Solution: Not reportedG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 106
357. The representative of Hungary stated that in March 2001, Turkey had banned the importation
of pet food from all European countries as a result of the BSE epidemic.  Although Hungary was a
BSE-free country, it was included in the ban's coverage due to the Turkish authorities' concern about
cross-infection.  After the Turkish authorities had provided an explanation in June 2001, Hungarian
companies stopped using raw materials derived from ruminants in pet food mix, but the ban on
Hungarian exports remained in place.  Hungary as ked where the Turkish regulation was published and
when it had been notified to the WTO.  Hungary al so as requested an explanation of the underlying
scientific justification for the ban and asked whether Turkish suppliers were treated identically to
foreign suppliers.  The United States and Europ ean Communities associated themselves with the
comments made by Hungary and requested to be informed of further developments.  Turkey
explained that the problem may have arisen as a result of some missing laboratory analysis, as no
import ban was in place.  Once that information had been provided, the importation procedures would
be complete.
358. In June 2002, Hungary indicated that Turkey had not provided an official response to the
questions submitted to it.  Hungary had requested consultations under the DSU on 5 May 2002.
Although some progress had been made at the consultations, the problem was still pending.  Hungary
hoped to find an amicable solution by the 5 July 2002 DSU deadline.  Turkey indicated that since the
issue was now a formal dispute, confidentiality requirements had to be respected.  Turkey wouldinform the Committee of further developments at a later stage.
Concerns related to FMD
131. 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: The United States reported in July 2001 that its concerns were resolved.
Hungary's concerns are outstanding.
359. 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 the
FMD-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 preventingthe 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.
360. 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 107
361. 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.
Plant Health
132. 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: Formal consultations requested by Ecuador on 10 September 2001 (DS237).
362. 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 control
certificates 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 relevantregulations, as well as testing and sampling methods.  These were the same for both domestic
producers and importers and in conformity with international standards.
363. 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 of
bananas, 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 the
importation process.  The system was described in the Official Gazette, and was not used to limitquantities.  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.
UNITED STATES
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES
Food Safety133. United States – Restrictions on melons
Raised by: Mexico
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 180-181)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/366
Solution: Not reportedG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 108
364. Mexico indicated that on 28 October 2002, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
imposed an emergency import ban on cantaloupe melons imported from Mexico.  Mexico considered
this measure as being disproportionate and not based on scientific evidence of any health risk
(G/SPS/GEN/366).  Mexico requested the United States to suspend the import ban on cantaloupe
melons and to comply with its obligations under the SPS Agreement.
365. The United States noted that FDA sampling of imported produce found that samples of
cantaloupe melons from most growing regions in Me xico tested positive for salmonella. The samples
had been collected both in the fall/winter and spring/summer seasons, and it appeared that unsanitary
conditions in the growing and packing of cantaloupe melons had resulted in four salmonella
outbreaks.  The import alert recommended officials to detain cantaloupe melons from Mexico at all
US ports without physical examination.  The Oct ober import alert expanded prior import alerts that
had targeted specific imports and growers whose products had been linked to outbreaks or had tested
positive for salmonella.  On 28 October 2002, the United States had announced that they wouldcontinue to work with Mexico on a food safety programme for production, packing and shipping of
fresh cantaloupe melons.  The Mexican Government had proposed a certification programme based
on good agricultural practices and good manufacturing practices that would allow the FDA to identify
firms that had adopted and implemented such a programme.  This certification programme was still
under development and the United States looked forward to its early implementation.
134. 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: Not reported
366. 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 clarification
from 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 for
consideration of equivalence, and indicated that answers to the more technical questions would be
provided in due course.
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to TSEs
135. United States – Import restrictions on meat and meat products
Raised by: Switzerland
Supported by:
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 10-12)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/321
Solution: Not reportedG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 109
367. Switzerland reported that following the outbreak of BSE in Switzerland, the United States had
banned imports of meat and meat products from Switzerland (G/SPS/GEN/321).  The ban applied also
to meat products processed in Switzerland with meat imported from countries free of BSE, such as
Argentina or Brazil.  Switzerland had a low incidence of BSE in terms of the OIE International
Animal Health Code and the US measure did not fo llow the international standards.  Moreover, the
US double inspection procedure was in violation of the SPS Agreement. Bilateral consultations hadclarified some of the questions raised by Switzerland, and would hopefully soon lead to a resumption
of trade in meat and meat products.  The European Communities requested to be informed of the
outcome of the discussions between Switzerland and the United States.
368. The United States noted that there was a further complication pertaining to the FMD status of
certain countries providing meat to Switzerland for processing and subsequent export to the United
States.
136. 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: Not reported
369. 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.  The
European 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 receivingnumerous 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 European
continent.  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.
370. 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 110
Other Animal Health Concerns
137. United States – Restrictions on pigmeat
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 11)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/214/Add.1
Solution: Not reported
371. The European Communities drew the Committee's attention to notification
G/SPS/N/USA/214/Add.1, which recognized Portugal as free of African swine fever.  The phrasing of
the US notification gave the erroneous impression that Portugal was "in a region infected with
classical swine fever", whereas Portugal was recognized as free of classical swine fever by the OIE.
Several EC member States remained on the US list of countries infected with classical swine fever
solely because of delays in the US legislative procedure for reclassification, possibly for politicalreasons.  The European Communities was hopeful that the publication of a final classical swine fever
rule would follow shortly.  The European Communities had signed a bilateral veterinary agreement
with the United States in 1999 on the underst anding that a final rule was imminent.
372. The United States noted that an outbreak of African swine fever was reported in Portugal in
1999 and that on 7 January 2000, the United States had notified measures taken in this regard.  Inspite of the change in African swine fever status, the export of pork products to the United States
could not commence due to the presence of other animal diseases. The United States stated that they
had legitimate scientific concerns related to classical swine fever in the European Communities
following recent outbreaks in Germany, Spain and Luxembourg.
138. 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: Not reported
373. 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 wasconcerned 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 SPS
Agreement, in particular Article 5.2 on risk assessment.
Plant Health
139. United States – Restrictions on imports of Chinese potted plants in growing medium
Raised by: China
Supported by: European Communities
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 43-45)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reportedG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 111
374. China indicated that US prohibitions on the importation of Chinese penjing in growing
medium continued almost six years after the risk analysis had been finished and the protocol had been
signed.  The United States had relied on the excuse of domestic legal procedures and the need to
coordinate work between the relevant government agencies to delay solving the problem.  China
requested the United States to notify its work procedures concerning the removal of measures
prohibiting imports of plants and plant products in compliance with the transparency provisions of theSPS Agreement.  China failed to understand why the United States had proposed to solve only the
problem of the importation of one of the types of penjing plants in growing medium, instead of
considering the five types for which the risk analysis had been completed.  The European
Communities supported the concerns raised by China and noted that they had run into the same
difficulties with other varieties of potted plants.  The European Communities urged the United States
to find a rapid solution to the problem.
375. The United States noted that the issue of penjing in growing medium had been the subject of
extensive discussions with China.  The United States had been working actively to evaluate China's
proposed importation, but the importation of plants in  growing medium was more complicated from a
risk mitigation perspective than importation of bare root plants.  While examination of bare root
plants could detect certain pests or disease problems, inspection of potted plants necessarily involved
the removal of the plant from the pot and the growing medium, and could damage the plant andreduce its commercial value.  Although the assessment of the risk to plant health posed by the
importation of the five species of penjing was essentially concluded, other risks needed to be
evaluated before determination if the importation presented an acceptable risk.  US regulatory
requirements for imported plants and growing medium reflected the need to prevent the introduction
of pests and disease that could seriously undermine or compromise native ecosystems, as well ascultivated plants, and this work was ongoing.  The 1997 protocol between the United States and China
reflected agreement on the technical issues relating to production, inspection, and quarantine
requirements for Chinese penjing that were necessary but not sufficient conditions for imports to
occur.  The protocol could not take effect until the risk assessments had been completed, and the
necessary regulatory and notification processes had run their course.  The United Statesacknowledged the importance that China attached to this issue, and indicated their commitment to
reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution as soon as possible.
140. 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: Not reported
376. 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 of
plant 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.  TheEuropean 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 native
ecosystems 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.  TheUnited 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 itsG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 112
member 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.
141. 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: Favourable conclusion reported in June 2000.  New concerns raised in
October 2001.
377. In November 1999, Argentina expressed concerns regarding the postponement of US
measures dealing with imports of citrus fruit from north-western Argentina.  Negotiation of the
measure had taken seven years and been finalized one year earlier.  Argentina appealed to the UnitedStates 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.
378. 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.
379. 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 zero
risk, 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 Argentina
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 UnitedStates indicated that the executive branch agencies were consulting about how to proceed and would
take Argentina's comments into account.
142. United States – Imports of clementines
Raised by: European Communities
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 7-10), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 58-
59)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
380. The European Communities reported that on 30 November 2001, USDA APHIS announced
an immediate temporary ban on citrus fruit imports from Spain following two reported interceptions
of live Mediterranean fruit fly larvae.  The finds were made in cold-treated clementines from Spain
stored in close proximity to, and possibly even mixed with, fruits from other sources.  Imports of
Spanish citrus into the United States had taken place in accordance with a protocol agreed in 1987
comprising pre-shipment inspection, cold treatment,  checks at the point of entry and measures thatG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 113
should be taken in the event of pest findings.  The European Communities considered the US measure
disproportionate to the extent and nature of the findings given the impact on trade, and discriminatory
since other foreign suppliers, also using cold trea tment, could still export clementines to the United
States.  The European Communities was also dismayed by the US decision to study revisions to the
cold treatment procedure and issue a final rule accordingly – a procedure which would take a
considerable period of time.
381. In June 2002 the European Communities reported that Spain and the United States continued
bilateral efforts to find a resolution to this problem.  The European Communities expressed concern as
to whether exports would be allowed to resume by  the following season on the basis of a new import
protocol, given that the slow procedures being foll owed by the United States might not be concluded
in time for the new season.  The European Communities indicated that if this were to occur they might
invoke the dispute resolution procedures.  The United States expressed appreciation for the
cooperation of the Spanish authorities in the matter and noted that the comment period had beenextended in order to permit all relevant parties th e opportunity to comment on the US risk assessment.
143. 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: Final rule published in December 1999, importation allowed under certain
conditions.
382. 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 beenpublished on 30 December 1999, allowing the importation of rhododendrons under conditions
designed to prevent the introduction of pests.
144. United States – Interim rule affecting solid wood packaging material
Raised by: none; Hong Kong, China is affected
Supported by: European Communities
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: Not reported
383. In November 1998, the United States provided information on an amendment of the
regulations applicable to unmanufactured wood, adding treatment and documentation requirementsfor 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 health
and 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 alsoG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 114
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 United
States 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.  InOctober 2001, Hong Kong, China reported that no new developments had occurred.
145. 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: Not reported
384. 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 orreform of national regulatory frameworks.  As many as five signatures were sometimes required to
clear the entry of goods into a territory.
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY THE UNITED STATES
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Food Safety
Item 29 Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Slovak Republic —Zero tolerance for
salmonella in imported poultry products
Item 34 China— Zero tolerance for e-coli
Item 33 China – Food Safety Regulations affecting agricultural products produced from modern
biotechnology
Item 49 European Communities — Regulations on genetically modified food and feed
Item 50 European Communities — Notifications G/SPS//N/EEC/150 on traceability and labelling
of genetically modified organisms and food and feed
Item 55 European Communities — Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation
Item 57 European Communities — Measure on establishments operating in the animal feed
sector
Item 62 European Communities (Spain) — Restriction on levels of coppers and cadmium in
imported squid
Item 86 Indonesia— Ban on hormones in animal production
Item 104 Korea —  Shelf-life requirements
Item 126 Switzeraland — Notifications regarding import requirements on meat and eggsG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 115
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 67 European Communities —Rules on "specified risk materials" in products of animal origin
Item 68 European Communities —Gelatin imports
Item 69 European Communities (France)— Certification requirements for pet food
Item 119 Poland— Notification on veterinary measures and measures on animal products including
gelatin
Item 124 South Africa— Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from member states of the EC
Item 146 Uruguay —Risk assessment on BSE
FMD Concerns
Item 131 Turkey— Import ban on livestock
Other Animal Health Concerns
Item 12 Australia— Ban on salmon imports
Item 153 Certain Members'— Notifications related to Avian Influenza
Item 70 European Communities— Ban on antibiotics in feed
Item 149 Venezuela— Measures related to Avian Influenza
Plant Health Concerns
Item 13 Australia —Access of California table grapes
Item 24 Brazil —Restrictions on imported wheat
Item 32 Chile— Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit
Item 128 Chinese Taipei's  policies regarding quarantine and non-quarantine pests
Item 80 Honduras —Restrictions on imports of rough rice
Item 90 Indonesia —Fresh fruit and vegetables
Item 97 Japan —Official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables
Item 98 Japan —Import measures on fire blight
Item 99 Japan— Testing requirements for different varieties of apples, cherries and nectarines
Item 100 Japan —Plant quarantine regulations
Item 101 Japan —Notification on amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law
Item 114 Panama— Requirements for certification of consumer rice
Item 154 Phytosanitary Issues in general
Item 120 Poland —Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds
Item 123 Slovak Republic —Import restrictions on potatoes
Other Concerns
Item 6 Argentina —Pest risk assessment requirements
Item 78 European Communities —Agricultural biotechnology approval process
Item 106 Korea— Import clearance measures and practicesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 116
URUGUAY
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY URUGUAY
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to TSEs
146. Uruguay – Risk assessment on  BSE
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 89-92)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/URY/5/Rev.1
Solution: Not reported
385. The United States observed that Uruguay had notified its adoption of the EC BSE
geographical base risk approach for classifying countries.  The United States recalled its BSE-free
status and the Harvard risk assessment on BSE, and asked that Uruguay take these into account.Canada indicated that it was providing informati on to Uruguay which would confirm Canada's status
as free of BSE.  The European Communities noted that the EC risk classification on BSE was never
intended to serve as the international norm.  Members should continue efforts to develop OIE risk
classifications in relation to BSE at the international level.  The European Communities hoped an
agreement would be reached in the OIE by June-July 2003.
386. Uruguay recalled that his country was highly dependent on animal product exports.  If BSE
appeared in Uruguay it would not only affect the he alth and life of people and animals, but would
have an economically devastating effect.  Uruguay had adopted the emergency measures due to the
growing number of countries with BSE over the last  year and the increased risk of introducing the
disease into the country.  According to OIE data, at the end of 2000 there were 12 countries with localoutbreaks, while that figure currently stood at 22.  Uruguay had adopted the risk assessment criteria
established by the European Communities until such time as the OIE produced a list of countries
classified in relation to BSE, and would review its legislation when the OIE finished its work in this
area.
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY URUGUAY
Item
NumberCountry Maintaining the Measure
Animal Health and Zoonoses
TSE Concerns
Item 92 Israel— Measures affecting imports of bovine meat
Other Animal Health Concerns
Item 46 El Salvador— Restrictions on meat and dairy products
Plant Health Concerns
Item 76 European Communities —Protected zonesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 117
VENEZUELA
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY VENEZUELA
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to FMD
147. Venezuela – FMD Restrictions
Raised by: Argentina
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 20), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 46- 47)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
387. Argentina requested Venezuela to accept imports of animal-based products that had followed
the risk mitigation procedures identified in the OIE Animal Health Code.  Venezuela stated that
Argentina had not been listed as an FMD-free zone in an OIE Bulletin dated 17 March 2002, and that
the Pan-American Health Office had reported on a new FMD outbreak in Argentina in a 6 March2002 report.
388. In June 2002, Argentina noted that despite bilateral contacts, Venezuela had not provided any
further information nor its risk assessment to Arge ntina.  Venezuela indicated that it recognized the
region of Argentina south of the 42
nd parallel as free from FMD without vaccination, and was
prepared to import meat from this region.  With respect to the other regions of Argentina, Venezuelafollowed the OIE recommendations, however it was willing to consult with Argentina on the matter.
Other Animal Health Concerns
148. 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: Not reported
389. 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 EC
representative urged the Venezuelan authorities to notify the relevant measures, giving other Members
a chance to comment.
149. 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: Not reportedG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 118
390. 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.
391. 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 notresponded 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.
Plant Health
150. Venezuela - Phytosanitary requirements for potatoes, garlic and onions
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), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para.43), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 54-55)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
392. 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 had
provided 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 woul d 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.
393. 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 ofpests that existed in Argentina but were exotic to Venezuela.  The sanitary services were evaluating
the appropriateness of alternative methods, such as pest free areas, that would meet Argentina's
legitimate trade concerns and Venezuela's appropriate level of protection.
394. In March 2002,  Argentina informed that bilateral negotiations with the Venezuelan health
authorities had taken place, but in the protocols agreed for importation on potatoes, garlic and onionthe matter of certification and inspection visits by Venezuelan officials was left outstanding.  In view
of the seasonal nature of these commodities, Argentina was concerned that if the inspection visits did
not take place soon, no exports would be possible before 2003.  In response, Venezuela noted that
they  were awaiting a proposal from Argentina on a convenient date for the inspection visit.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 119
395. In June 2002, Argentina stated that there had been no progress in resolving the problems
arising from Venezuela's restrictions on potatoes, garlic and onions.  Argentina was waiting for the
onsite visit which Venezuela indicated was necessary before trade could resume.  Venezuela stated
that some revisions to its requirements had been made, and it was now organizing a technical visit to
examine the pest surveillance systems in Argentine producing areas, with the hope of finding a
solution to the problem.
Other Concerns
151. Venezuela – Restrictions on imports of potatoes, fresh mushrooms, fresh tomatoes,
fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and meat products
Raised by: Colombia
Supported by: Chile, United States, Canada
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 27-29)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
396. Colombia stated that Venezuela was not granting sanitary certificates for potatoes, fresh
mushrooms, fresh tomatoes, fertile eggs, day-old chicks and meat products and requested that
Venezuela notify the measure which served as the basis for the discretionary granting or non-issuance
of health certificates for Colombian exports, or to lift this measure.  Chile, the United States andCanada supported the concerns expressed by Colombia.
397. Venezuela provided details of import levels for potatoes, mushrooms and fresh tomatoes in
2001, which showed that import licenses were being granted.  Venezuela had temporarily suspended
SPS licensing for fertile eggs and day-old chicks as a result of an outbreak of avian flu in Colombia, a
disease alien to Venezuela, from January 2002.  On 8 February 2002, the prohibition on fertile eggswas removed.  Notification of the lifting of restrictions against day-old chicks was made on 7 March
2002.  For meat products, Venezuela noted that her country regularly imported beef on the hoof,
slaughtered and processed beef and swine products.  In reply to the comments of other Members, she
stated that it was important not to confuse problems of administrative capacity and management with
discretionary licensing.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 120
OTHER CONCERNS
ANIMAL HEALTH CONCERNS
ANIMAL HEALTH CONCERNS MAINTAINED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS
Animal Health and Zoonoses
Concerns related to FMD
152. 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), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 48-49), November 2002
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 52-53)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/269
Solution: New Zealand, Indonesia, Ukraine and Switzerland lifted restrictions against
EC member States after they regained FMD-free status.  Problems with
other Members persisting.
398. 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 European
Communities had been eliminated, they had been replaced by other control instruments.
399. 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.
400. 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.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 121
401. 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 SPS
Agreement.
402. 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 had
been 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.
403. 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, Irelandand 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.
404. In June 2002, the European Communities reported that most Members had lifted their
restrictions related to the FMD outbreak in Europe.  The OIE had just revised its list of countries
recognized as FMD-free, which included all 15 EC member States.  However, some Memberscontinued to apply restrictions or requirements which served as administrative bans on EC products,
in particular UK meat and meat products.  Argentina noted that they also continued to suffer long-
term negative effects from measures kept in place without justification.
405. Japan reported that the Domestic Animal Infectious Disease Control Law had been amended
on 14 June, permitting resumption of imports of pork meat and products from France and Ireland.The comment period regarding a proposed lifting of the import ban on Dutch products had just
concluded, and the ban could be lifted as early as mid-July.
406. In November 2002 the European Communities noted disappointment that some unnecessary
and unreasonable FMD trade barriers continued to affect EC exports, in violation of the SPS
Agreement.  Mexico imposed a number of BSE-related measures that had a detrimental effect on
exports from Austria, although Austria had registered no cases of FMD in the course of the 2001
outbreaks.  Bilateral meetings on the matter had been unsuccessful.  Mexico indicated that itrecognized Austria as being FMD free but were waiting to receive a request from Austria for plant
inspections.  Argentina supported the comments ma de by the European Communities with regards to
FMD-related measures taken by certain Members.G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.3
Page 122
Other Animal Health Concerns
153. Certain Members – Notifications related to Avian Influenza
Raised by: United States
Supported by:
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 63-66)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally
Solution: Not reported
407. The United States noted that although international standards existed with regard to avian
influenza, differences in the understanding and interpretation of these standards was resulting in
unjustified trade barriers.  The OIE considered highly pathogenic avian influenza as a List A disease,
however low pathogenic strains were not considered to have any significant animal health or socio-
economic consequences.  However, some Members had restricted imports of poultry products from
the United States due to a strain of low pathogenic avian influenza in two poultry flocks in the state ofVirginia.  The United States requested that the OIE national and regional offices take a pro-active role
in advising their members on this matter.  Japan observed that there was a possibility of variation in
the strains, with a case of a low pathogenic strain causing an outbreak that later varied to a high
pathogenic strain.  Japan had provided scientific evidence in this regard to the United States, and
believed that its measure was fully justified.
408. The OIE confirmed that the OIE Animal Health Code referred to highly pathogenic or
virulent avian influenza;  most strains of avian influenza were of low pathogenicity and did not cause
economic effects.  However, the OIE Manual of Standards also made reference to low pathogenicity
viruses in laboratory tests through mutation showing highly pathogenic effects in the field.  The OIE
was working on a definition to include such viruses.  The Philippines noted that the OIE Manual alsoincluded some text related to low pathogenic strains as these strains could also cause clinical disease
and problems.
PHYTOSANITARY CONCERNS
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO PHYTOSANITARY ISSUES IN GENERAL
Plant Health154. 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: Not reported
409. 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 ensure
compliance with the principle of national treatment as well as other key provisions.
__________