STC Number - 127
  Generate document   Go back   New search

Import ban on products of Dutch origin

Maintained by: China
Raised by: European Union
Supported by:
First date raised: June 2002 G/SPS/R/27 paras 31-32
Dates subsequently raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28 paras. 73-74)
April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29 paras. 82-83)
Number of times subsequently raised: 2
Relevant documents: Raised orally
Products covered: 02 Meat and edible meat offal; 03 Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates; 04 Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included; 05 Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included
Primary subject keyword: Food safety
Keywords: Food safety; Human health
Status: Resolved
Solution: In June 2003, the representative the European Union informed the Committee that the Chinese embargo on products from the Netherlands had been lifted (G/SPS/R/30, par. 39-41).
Date reported as resolved: 01/06/2003

Extracts from SPS Committee meeting summary reports

In June 2002, the representative of 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. He considered the Chinese measure to be more trade restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of protection in violation of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. 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.

The representative of 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 of the 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. He stressed that this measure was not related to the EC's ban on Chinese foodstuffs of animal origin.

In November 2002, the representative of the European Communities recalled that China had detected traces of chlorophenicol in a few Dutch exports of animal products and immediately imposed a ban on a wide range of Dutch exports. The European Communities considered this a disproportionate reaction to a problem that could have been resolved in a mutually satisfactory manner without disrupting trade. Although some progress had been made, the European Communities called upon China to increase efforts to resolve the issue.

The representative of China observed that other countries had faced similar problems with Dutch products. Progress had been made on resolving this matter and his country was now working to remove the ban for other products. For this purpose, China had requested the Netherlands to provide information to enable China to conduct a risk assessment, as soon as possible. He took note of the EC concerns and stated that China hoped to resolve the remaining problems as soon as possible.

In April 2003, the representative of the European Communities recalled that in April 2002, China imposed an import ban on all products of animal origin from the Netherlands on the basis of a supposed single finding of chloromphenecol in casings of Dutch origin. China had lifted restrictions on certain products of no real trade significance, and it appeared that as the European Communities lifted its ban on certain Chinese products the Chinese authorities would reciprocate by lifting their ban on certain EC products. A satisfactory solution had not yet been found for a large number of animal products of Dutch origin, in particular dairy products. The European Communities had responded to requests for information from China in December 2002. However, these had been followed by additional questions in March 2003 and an indication that an inspection mission would be necessary before anything further could be done. The representative of the European Communities questioned why this inspection visit had not been proposed sooner. He stated that China's restrictions were not in conformity with Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.6 of SPS Agreement, and he urged China to withdraw its measures as soon as possible.

The representative of China recalled that his authorities had lifted the ban on certain products on 25 December 2002, after receipt of information from the appropriate national authorities at the beginning of December. For other products, China had been waiting for almost one year for information on the Netherlands' residue monitoring and assessment controls. Based on the information provided to date, China had identified significant defects with respect to sampling and conformity with the relevant EC directives, including sampling of dairy products or casings. An inspection visit was necessary to address these outstanding issues. The receipt of additional information from the Dutch authorities on 21 March 2003 would enable the visit of China's inspection team in the near future. China hoped to be able to report a positive outcome of this matter to the Committee before the end of the year.

In June 2003, the representative of the European Communities provided information on a number of restrictions which he had raised at previous meetings. The Chinese embargo on products from the Netherlands had been lifted, and the European Communities believed this issue was now resolved. China had also notified its Decree 31 on aquatic products, and had provided a comment period. The European Communities had also been actively trying to establish the exact content of the Chinese requirements for obtaining import certifications for animal products – a requirement related to FMD and BSE. China also required monitoring of residues and copies of reports. Regarding wood packing material, the European Communities had now adopted the IPPC standard and China had promised to do the same. On cosmetics, China had presented a list of prohibited products and that was considered a progress by the European Communities. The European Communities, however, emphasized that the new rules would have to be made part of the legislation. Furthermore, China had decided to ban all imports of poultry from Germany even though only one case of avian influenza was reported in Germany. This was not in accordance with the measures recommended by the OIE against avian influenza. A joint European Communities – China technical working group had been established, and the European Communities expected good results from the group.

The representative of China reaffirmed that the ban on Dutch products had been lifted after an inspection visit and the conclusion of a risk assessment. Concerning UK meat products, China was considering bilateral meetings with UK officials. China had earlier commented regard wood packing materials, and was committed to follow the IPPC standard if this standard were finally approved. Regarding cosmetics, China was willing to review its regulations and welcomed continued dialogue. On the avian influenza issue, China was awaiting a revised position by the OIE.

The representative of the OIE indicated that the current code contained recommendations for import restrictions relating to avian influenza, but this chapter was under revision. The revised document would address all types of avian influenza and infections, on the basis of experience.