VZCZCXRO8296
RR RUEHBI
DE RUEHLM #1011/01 3080737
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 040737Z NOV 09
FM AMEMBASSY COLOMBO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0723
INFO RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA 2011
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD 9047
RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU 7285
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 3440
RUEHKP/AMCONSUL KARACHI 2561
RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI 9610
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI 6904

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 001011 
 
SIPDIS 
 
USTR FOR GBLUE and VICTORIA KADER; DEPARTMENT FOR EB/TPP/BTA and 
SCA/INSB 
 
E.O 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON ETRD EFIN CE
 
SUBJECT: MODIFIED CABLE: SRI LANKA - 2010 NTE REPORT ON SANITARY AND 
PHYTOSANITARY (SPS) AND STANDARDS-RELATED FOREIGN TRADE BARRIERS 
 
REF: SECSTATE 105978 
 
¶1. (U) This cable corrects an earlier version by replacing 
paragraphs 10 and 11 with paragraph 10 here.  The following is in 
response to reftel's request on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) and 
Standards Related Foreign Barriers to trade in Sri Lanka. 
 
STANDARDS 
¶2. (U) The Sri Lanka Standards Institution (SLSI) is operating a 
Compulsory Import Inspection Scheme (covering 102 items) per 
regulations framed under the Imports and Exports Control Act, No. 1 
of 1969 as amended by Act No. 28 of 1987.  According to the Imports 
Standardization and Quality Control Regulations of 2006, conformity 
of the imported products to the relevant Sri Lankan Standards are 
monitored.  Samples are drawn from consignments accompanied by a 
quality certificate from an accredited laboratory or manufacturer 
registered with SLSI, which could be subject to testing or random 
check, or if there is a reasonable doubt regarding the quality of 
the consignment. 
¶3. (U) Sri Lanka has introduced new food safety regulations. 
According to the Adoption of Standards Regulations of 2008 (Ref. No. 
1589/34 - FEB 2009), 158 SLSI standards were made mandatory starting 
in September 2009 for certain food and beverage products.  (NOTE: 
Post will provide a PDF document containing notification of the 
regulations per request.  END NOTE.)  The SLSI standards range from 
commodities to processed products.  Though these standards did exist 
previously, they were for the most part voluntary.  Some U.S. 
companies are concerned that these newly-mandatory measures do not 
factor in market preferences and could restrict trade.  The Ministry 
of Health, which is the CODEX focal point, plans to notify the WTO 
with regard to this new regulation. 
 
TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE 
 
¶4. (U) In January 2007, the Ministry of Health adopted a regulation 
for the import, sale and mandatory labeling of genetically 
engineered (GE) food products, potentially costing U.S. industry as 
much as $20 million.  This regulation is moving towards full 
implementation, although some aspects of it are irregularly enforced 
or not enforced at all.  Key problems with the regulation include: 
mandatory Sri Lankan regulatory approval of foods with 0.05 percent 
or more of GE content; labeling for products with more than 0.05 
percent of GE content; and the requirement that shipments of bulk 
commodities be accompanied by documentation certifying that there is 
no GE content.  Sri Lankan importers have raised several concerns 
about the regulation, including that conformity with a 0.05 percent 
GE content labeling threshold would be costly and that mandatory 
labeling could needlessly raise consumer concerns with 
biotechnology.  Additionally, importers fear that bureaucratic 
procedures in granting approvals - as well as Sri Lanka's technical 
inability to carry out approvals - may obstruct and limit future 
imports of GE products.  For example, a 2008 U.S. GE corn shipment 
was cancelled due to excessive bureaucratic delays.  This decision 
has discouraged many Sri Lankan importers from attempting to import 
unprocessed GE bulk commodities, as it is understood that their 
import license application will be ignored, delayed or refused. 
 
¶5. (U) During October 2009 discussions under the United States-Sri 
Lanka Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA), the United 
States raised concerns regarding Sri Lanka's mandatory labeling 
requirement, noting a lack of scientific justification, and adding 
that the regulation would essentially act as a nontariff barrier. 
Sri Lanka stated that they would follow CODEX Alimentarius 
guidelines pertaining to the labeling of GE foods, and noted that 
CODEX had not yet ruled on this issue.  The United States also 
reminded Sri Lanka of the trade ramifications of their GE policy, 
including the previously mentioned corn shipment as well as a 
rejected November 2008 food aid shipment of rice.  Sri Lankan 
regulators were not persuaded to change their position.  The USG 
will continue to raise the issue. 
 
¶6. (U) USDA has sent several local scientists and regulators for 
training in biotechnology and biosafety at Michigan State 
University.  The most recent regulator to participate in this 
program is the Director of Biosafety at the Ministry of Environment, 
who is a senior regulator with respect to agricultural 
biotechnology.  He is also the coordinator for the National 
Biosafety framework.  His view of biotechnology was positively 
transformed by the training, and he acknowledged several previous 
personal misconceptions.  USDA and the State Department will 
continue to work with Ministry of Environment officials to affect 
 
COLOMBO 00001011  002 OF 002 
 
 
regulatory change. 
 
SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY (SPS) MEASURES 
 
¶7. (U) POULTRY:  Sri Lanka has banned the importation of U.S. 
chicken meat that is not mechanically deboned.  During the October 
2009 United States-Sri Lanka TIFA meeting, Sri Lanka openly admitted 
that this measure was in place to protect its domestic industry and 
contended that this was permitted under the use of a WTO safeguard 
mechanism.  The U.S. government responded that if this were the 
case, that safeguard should be formally raised within the WTO. 
Additionally, Sri Lanka had imposed avian influenza bans on all 
poultry and poultry products imported from several U.S. states.  As 
of October 2009, these bans were all removed.  Sri Lanka imposed 
these bans due to the detection of low pathogenicity notifiable 
avian influenza, an action which is not supported by the World 
Organization for Animal Health (OIE).  Sri Lanka was reluctant to 
remove the bans and continues to believe that their actions were 
justified - raising concerns that such action may reoccur. 
 
¶8. (U) BEEF:  A ban on U.S. beef imports remains in effect due to 
the detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the 
United States in 2003.  This ban is also not supported by the OIE, 
and Sri Lanka is one of five countries in the world to have taken 
absolutely no action to lift any part of their BSE-related U.S. beef 
ban.  This issue was raised during the October 2009 TIFA.  Sri Lanka 
defended their position by incorrectly citing the guidelines and 
recommendations of the OIE's guidelines for meat and poultry. 
 
¶9. (U) MICROBIOLOGICAL TESTING OF MEAT IMPORTS:  In September 2009, 
Sri Lanka started 100% testing of all imported meat products for 
various pathogens.  This policy change was not notified to the WTO. 
Importers have complained that the additional demurrage costs 
associated with the testing are unnecessary, and that government 
testing methods are not sound.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture 
additionally argues that the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service 
attestation which mandatorily accompanies all meat exports is a 
sufficient assurance of wholesomeness.  During the October 2009 
TIFA, Sri Lanka was asked to provide its regulation on 
microbiological testing, especially as it relates to their testing 
protocol, targeted pathogens, and acceptable pathogen levels.  The 
U.S. government also emphasized the importance of notifying the WTO 
SPS committee of this regulation. 
 
¶10. (U) Seed Potato:  Sri Lanka lifted a ban on imports of seed 
potato from the United States in March 2007, initially instituted 
due to fears that the Colorado Potato Beetle (CPB) could have been 
introduced into Sri Lanka by these imports.  However, Sri Lanka now 
requires a certificate from a plant entomologist stating that the 
CPB does not exist in the potato tuber to accompany the seed potato 
imports.  The United States has pressed for the removal of this 
certificate requirement on the grounds that it was not 
scientifically justified.  In July 2008, Sri Lankan officials 
visited the U.S. potato industry to further review the issue.  It is 
hoped that as a result of this visit, the issue will be resolved and 
a visual inspection at the time of shipment will be considered 
sufficient to address any concerns.  Although this issue may be 
addressed, recent 2008 import permits have included overly 
restrictive virus tolerances and requirements on generations of seed 
potatoes.  There is concern that the generation requirements are not 
being applied to seed potatoes imported from other markets such as 
Europe.  The CPB area freedom certificate, virus tolerances, and 
restrictive generation requirements all need to be addressed before 
the Sri Lankan market can grow into a strong commercial export 
market for U.S. seed potatoes. 
 
¶11. (U) Information contained in this cable will also be provided to 
requesting offices as a Word document via email.  Questions should 
be directed to EconOff Ken Kero-Mentz at keroka@state.gov. 
 
 
BUTENIS