The new ruling allows US apples entry into the Japanese market as the fireblight disease can no longer be used as a quarantine restriction to prevent their entry. But Australian growers insist there is no parallel between last week's decision and New Zealand's bid to send apples to Australia.

However, a new study by law firm MinterEllisonRuddWatts reported in the New Zealand Herald suggests Australian growers may not be facing up to the facts.

NZ growers have been denied access to the trans-Tasman market for 80 years because of fireblight and believe the ruling is a breakthrough.

But Apple & Pear Australia's fireblight taskforce chairman John Corboy was reported saying studies of the risk of importing fruit from countries such as New Zealand are inconclusive. 'After reading the 280-page WTO report, it's clear that are no direct parallels between this decision and New Zealand's bid to send potentially fireblight-carrying apples to this country,' he was reported.

But New Zealand growers are still confident that the ruling does apply to their own dispute. Phil Alison, chairman of Pipfruit Growers New Zealand said access to Australian markets could be worth about NZ$40 million to New Zealand growers.

And the MinterEllisonRuddWatts' report concluded that the US case against Japan was won on points that are 'almost identical' to those in the dispute between Australia and New Zealand.

Australian farm authorities have produced a draft report with 11 measures that must be undertaken in New Zealand before imports can resume.

Five of the most restrictive are almost exactly the same as those that Japan had imposed on the US and were deemed to be 'without sufficient scientific evidence' by the WTO. The argument centres on whether apple fruit can actually carry the disease or not.

Topics