. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/105
23 November 1998
(98-4684)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
MEXICO'S IMPORT PROHIBITION OF THAI MILLED RICE
Statement by Thailand at the meeting of 11-12 November 1998
1. It is not our nature to keep raising the issue of the Mexican import prohibition of Thai milled
rice before the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  As you all know, this issue has
been on the agenda for the past four meetings and it has not yet been resolved.
2. Please allow me to report on our consultations to the Committee and I will concentrate my
comments under two headings.
3. First, on the format of bilateral consultations between Thailand and Mexico, Thailand
formally proposed to the Mexican delegation to ho ld the consultations prior to the meeting of this
Committee with the participation of the current Chairman of the Committee, as we understand is
possible in accordance with Article 12.2 of the SPS Agreement.  The Mexican delegation kindlyaccepted our proposal but without the participation of the Chairman.  I am certain that Mexico is in
the best position to provide an explanation to the Committee.  Thailand sees the merit of having the
Chairman participate in the consultations if progress has not been reached in bilateral consultations.
Other alternatives for future bilateral consultations could be considered, namely, the involvement of a
neutral or independent expert.  Thailand would welcome any alternative in the spirit of transparency if
Mexico wished to suggest the format for future consultations.
4. My second comment is on the substance of the issue.  I will be brief.  On November 1993, the
Mexican authorities proclaimed that Thai rice was infected with Kernel smut caused by the fungus
Tilletia barclayana .  Thailand has provided scientific data indicating that, not only Mexico but also
other countries that export rice into Mexico, fall under the group of countries infected by such fungus.
So far Mexico has never provided scientific data that show the risk of disease transmission from Thai
milled rice.  The Mexican delegation may additionally wish to look at the last paragraph of thedocument G/SPS/GEN/82.  We would like to stress that the measure imposed by Mexico is
inconsistent with the principle of "non-discrimination" set out in Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement
and Articles I and III of GATT 1994.
5. On 10 November1998, when Thailand and Mexico held consultations, my colleague from
Mexico insisted that Thailand had not yet provided the information on a new pest, as requested in aletter dated November 1997.  It is true that Thailand did not provide the requested information on the
new pest due to several reasons:
(a) While the initial problem concerning fungus that caused the Mexican Government to
prohibit the importation of rice from Thailand has not yet been resolved, Mexico has
also made a request for additional information on a new pest.  We feel that there isnot enough justification to provide the requested information on the new pest toG/SPS/GEN/105
Page 2
Mexico since there is no linkage between the new pest and the import prohibition of
Thai milled rice.
(b) According to the Mexican notification G/ SPS/N/MEX/55, the new pest identified in
the letter is not listed in the Mexican Standard Establishing External Quarantine to
Prevent the Introduction of Rice Pests into Mexico.  We do not know the real reasonfor requesting information on the new pest.
(c) We are of the view that Mexico could continue to request more information on one
pest after another.
6. At this stage, we do not understand clearly the way the Mexican Government has identified
the problem underlying the application of the import prohibition on Thai milled rice.
7. In view of that good relationship that exists between our two countries, Thailand will continue
to further consult with Mexico in the new format of consultations on this issue.  We urge the Mexicandelegation to kindly convey our message to the authorities in Mexico.  This problem is vital for the
interests of Thailand.
8. Lastly, we would like to thank those who informally and formally share the disappointment of
our delegation with the outcome of these bilateral consultations.
__________