对此，日本提出了两项上诉：一是关于“非出事无害苹果”的。日本认为，第一

对此，日本提出了两项上诉：
一是关于“非出事无害苹果”的。日本认为，第一，不存在受感染的苹果成为病虫害感染源的风险，但美国没有完成举证；第二，专家组要日本证明“没有充分的科学证据”是将证明责任转移给了日本，是法律错误；

結果 (英文) 1:

In this regard, Japan has proposed two appeals:
First, the "non-accident harmless Apple. Japan believes that, first, there is no risk of infected apple pest infection source, but the United States did not complete the proof; Second, the Group of Japan prove "sufficient scientific evidence" to prove that the transfer of responsibility to the Japanese, error of law;

結果 (英文) 2:

To this, Japan put forward two appeals: one is about "a harmless apple.".The Japanese think, first, not affected by the presence of infection diseases and insect pests of apple as source of infection risk, but the United States did not complete the proof; second, the expert group to Japan proved "without sufficient scientific evidence" is the proof responsibility was transferred to the Japanese, is a mistake of law;

結果 (英文) 3:

In this regard, Japan has made two appeals:
a is "not something Apple-friendly". Japan believes that, first, the absence of Apple's risk of becoming infected by source of infection, but the United States did not complete proof; the second, the Group of experts to Japan proved "without sufficient scientific evidence" is to shift the burden of proof to Japan, is an error of law;