. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/366
20 December 2002
(02-7051)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  Spanish
BAN ON IMPORTS OF MEXICAN CANTALOUPE MELONS
BY THE UNITED STATES
Statement by Mexico at the Meeting of 7-8 November 2002
1. My Government wishes to express its concerns regarding a measure which was recently
adopted by the United States and which we regard as inconsistent with the provisions of the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).
2. On 28 October 2002, the Government of the United States, acting through the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), decided to impose, in a totally unjustified manner, a general ban on imports ofcantaloupe melons from Mexico.  It should be pointed out that the Mexican health authorities were
notified by telephone a few hours only before the measure was applied at the goods' points of entry
into the US.
3. Despite the severity and lack of proportionality of the measure, the FDA decided to impose it
without previously consulting the Mexican authorities in any way and, more serious still, in theabsence of any type of imminent threat, substantiated by scientific evidence, regarding the safety of
the fruit.  Under the circumstances, it appears particularly strange that the US adopted such a measure
precisely at the start of the current export season for Mexican cantaloupes – especially considering
that the FDA had already inspected and admitted at least 59 consignments of the product for import
since the beginning of the season.
4. It should be noted that indications of "supposed" health risks posed by Mexican cantaloupes
exported to the US – even though such risks were not confirmed by the slightest scientific evidence –had led Mexico to work with the FDA over the pr eceding seven months with a view to improving
regulations and inspection procedures for these products.
5. Hence, the imposition of this measure by the United States is a unilateral and unjustified
restriction that is above all in consistent with the SPS Agreement;  this is substantiated by the
following arguments:
(a) First, Mexico considers that in adopting the measure at issue the US should have
satisfied each and every one of the obligations laid down in paragraph 5 of Annex B
of the SPS Agreement, since the FDA had been aware of a "supposed" threat for
several years, meaning that there was no right for it to adopt an emergency measure
but that it should have followed and abided by the ordinary adoption procedures.
(b) Assuming, but not acknowledging, that the measure imposed was indeed adopted on
the grounds of an allegedly imminent threat, Mexico considers that in proceeding in
this manner the US violated the obligation in paragraph 6 of Annex B  of the SPS
Agreement, by failing to notify the measure through the WTO Secretariat.
(c) As regards the substance of the matter, Mexico informs the Committee that most of
the companies affected by the measure (which are also the source of most of Mexico'sG/SPS/GEN/366
Page 2
cantaloupe exports) have never been associated with any type of health incident and
that they have, moreover, been assiduously cooperating with both the Mexican and
the US health authorities.  They are, however, affected by the prohibition in question,
which clearly shows that it has been applied beyond the extent necessary to protect
the health of US consumers, in blatant contradiction with the provisions ofArticle 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.
(d) Many cantaloupe producers in the US as in other countries fail to meet the standards
that this measure has imposed on Mexican producers.  Thus, even though the US has
reported similar safety problems regarding products from other countries, the measure
has been imposed on Mexico alone.  Moreover, microbiological tests conducted
during concurrent periods in 2001 showed that contamination levels in cantaloupes
produced in the US were practically identical to those in like Mexican products.  Inview of the above, Mexico considers that the measure at issue is openly
discriminatory and hence contrary to Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement.
(e) Even though the FDA has announced that there is a procedure which should serve to
exempt from the ban specific companies that provide evidence of compliance with
FDA standards, no criteria or requirements have so far been specified fordemonstrating such compliance, nor has an y timeframe been set for processing the
corresponding applications.  As part of the procedure, the FDA has also provided for
an in situ  inspection of cantaloupe plantations and packaging plants, which is highly
onerous for Mexican companies and especially those that have never been associated
with the "supposed" health risk at issue.  Thus, in Mexico's view, another reason why
the ban cannot be maintained derives from Article 5.4 and 5.6  of the SPS
Agreement, because the measure is more trade restrictive than required to achieve an
effective level of protection and fails to take account of the negative effects for
Mexican cantaloupe exports.
(f) Lastly, it should be emphasized that the producing firms that have allegedly been
associated with certain health risks are located in specific parts of Mexico.  In this
connection, the FDA has clearly made no effort to adapt the measure to the
characteristics of the different production areas, meaning that the US has violated the
obligation laid down in Article 6.1  of the SPS Agreement.
6. On the basis of the above reasoning, Mexico considers it essential for the United States to
repeal the measure imposed on Mexican cantaloupe exports without delay and thus to comply with its
obligations under the SPS Agreement.
__________