OPENING OF THE SESSION (Agenda Item 1)
1. The Codex Committee on Fats and Oils held its 15th Session from 4 to 8 November 1996 in London, at the kind invitation of the Government of the United Kingdom. The meeting was attended by 99 delegates and observers representing 26 Members and one observer country and 9 international organizations. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Grant Meetings, Head of Food Labelling and Standards Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The complete list of participants is included as Appendix I to this report.
2. The Session was opened by Mr. Meekings who welcomed participants to the Fifteenth Session on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom and wished them all success in their work.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA1 (Agenda Item 2)
3. The Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda (CX/FO 96/1) as the Agenda for the Session. In order to facilitate the discussion of Agenda Item 7 - Fat Spreads (section on additives) and Agenda Item 9 -Methods of Analysis, the Committee agreed to establish two informal Working Groups chaired respectively by Dr. A. Dunn (United Kingdom) and Dr. R. Wood (United Kingdom).
MATTERS OF INTEREST TO THE COMMITTEE2 (Agenda Item 3)
4. The Committee was informed of the decisions of the Commission concerning its work and the Delegation of Malaysia recalled that it had objected to the adoption of the Draft Code of Practice at step 5 in view of potential problems in trade. The Committee also noted the decisions of the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants relevant to the current revision of the standards.
1 CX/FO 96/1
2 CX/FO 96/2
REVISION OF CURRENT STANDARDS (Agenda Item 4)
5. The Committee noted that the Draft Standards under consideration had been adopted at Step 5 by the 21st Session of the Commission (ALINORM 95/17, Appendices V, VII, VIII, X) and circulated for comments at Step 6 (CL 1995/25-FO). In reply to a question, the Committee noted that the introductory statement at the beginning of the standard resulted from a decision made by the Commission. The Committee considered the drafts section by section in the light of the written comments received and made the following amendments to the current texts.
DRAFT STANDARD FOR NAMED ANIMAL FATS3
3 CX/FO 96/3 (comments from Spain), CRD 1 (Thailand), CRD 2 (annotated draft with comments)
6. In section 2.1.1. the Committee agreed that the definition should refer to “pure rendered lard” instead of “lard” in order to clarify the nature of the product. In section 2.1.2 Lard subject to processing, the Committee agreed to specify that the product might be subjected to processes of modification, while noting that confusion should be avoided between refining and processing, and that the description only covered lard which was fit for human consumption, in accordance with the Scope.
2.3 Premier Jus
7. The Committee agreed to specify that low heat rendering corresponded to a maximum temperature of 60° C. It was further agreed to delete the sentence prohibiting the use of cutting fats, as these were currently used as raw material, and to specify that they were allowed.
2.4 Edible Tallow (Dripping)
8. The Committee did not accept a proposal to exclude tissues obtained from sheep, as their use was an established practice.
3. Essential Composition and Quality Factors
9. The Committee noted a proposal from the Delegation of France for amended GLC ranges of fatty acid composition but agreed to retain the current section, as extensive changes to the values would require further detailed consideration.
10. The Committee noted that a section on colours allowed in animal fats was already included in the Standard for Fats and Oils not Covered by Individual Standards and agreed that the same provisions should be included in the present standard for consistency (see also para. 22).
11. Some delegations and the Observer from the EC expressed the view that tertiary butyl hydroquinone (TBHQ) should not be allowed in any fats and oils, including named animal fats, and questioned the necessity of using this specific additive when other antioxidants were available, especially as the low ADI might be easily exceeded if this additive was used in a wide range of products. Other delegations stressed that there was no justification to prohibit TBHQ and that its technological need was clearly established; in this perspective, the standard should reflect current practice on an international basis. It was also recalled that JECFA had evaluated and allocated an ADI to TBHQ; the current level of use, as proposed by the last session, had been endorsed by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants.
12. The Committee agreed to retain the current provisions for TBHQ and noted that all antioxidants were currently under review in the framework of the General Standard for Food Additives; member countries therefore had the opportunity of presenting relevant comments for consideration by the CCFAC.
13. The Committee agreed to delete orthophosphoric acid from the list of additives as it was essentially used as a coadjuvant in the refining process, and should not be included as an additive, but as a processing aid. The Observer from the EC did not agree with the inclusion of isopropyl citrates and monoglyceride citrate, which were however retained with the current levels.
14. The Committee considered additional proposals put forward by the Observer from the EC but did not include them in the text. It was pointed out that JECFA had not allocated an ADI to dodecyl gallate and octyl gallate, which could not therefore be considered for inclusion as additives, in conformity with the Preamble to the General Standard for Food Additives. As regards the proposed inclusion of lecithins, calcium and potassium citrates, mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids with specific levels, the Committee noted such additives with an ADI “not specified” or “not limited” should be used according to GMP, and that a justification should be given when specific levels were put forward.
15. It was agreed that the decisions taken on the current Additives section would apply consequentially to all relevant standards under consideration, where applicable.
16. In section 5.1 Heavy Metals, the Committee agreed to include a general statement to the effect that the products should comply with the provisions established by the Commission. The current specific limits for lead and arsenic, as endorsed by the CCFAC, were retained with the understanding that they would ultimately be incorporated into the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food. It was agreed that this decision would apply consequentially to all relevant standards when applicable.
17. Some Delegations expressed the view that the current value of 5 meq/kg was too restrictive and should be replaced with 10 meq/kg. Other Delegations pointed out that the peroxide value might reach 10 meq/kg when sold to final consumers and the products were at the end of their shelf life, while the provisions in the Appendix were intended for application in international trade. A higher value might be applied for distribution purposes at the national level. The Delegation of Malaysia expressed the view that 5 meq was too stringent and might be applied by governments to restrict imports despite the advisory nature of the appendix. The Committee agreed to retain the current value of 5 meq/kg.
Status of the Draft Standard for Named Animal Fats
18. The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Standard, as included in Appendix II, to the Commission for adoption at step 8 of the procedure.
DRAFT STANDARD FOR EDIBLE FATS AND OILS NOT COVERED BY INDIVIDUAL STANDARDS4
19. The Committee decided to insert the wording “(such as trans-esterification and hydrogenation) or fractionation” after the term “processes of modification” as examples of modification and processing for clarification.
20. The Committee considered a proposal to include a definition of refined vegetable fats and oils as specific criteria were defined for such products in the Appendix. It decided not to do so as definitions corresponded to labelling requirements, which were not applicable to refined products as such.
4 ALINORM 95/17, Appendix V; CX/FO 96/3 (comments from Spain); CRD 1 (comments from Thailand); and CRD 3 (annotated text).
2.3 Cold Pressed Fats and Oils
21. The Committee discussed the proposal of Spain to include a reference to the maximum temperature of 50°C for cold pressing. The Committee noted that while heat should not be applied for cold pressed fats, the temperature during cold pressing could reach 60°C or higher due to friction. Several delegations reported
their studies regarding the maximum temperature reached and the critical temperature above which chemical and/or organoleptic changes would occur. The Committee agreed that the reference to mechanical procedures without heat application was sufficient to characterize cold pressed fats and oils and there was no need to specify a maximum temperature.
3. Food Additives
22. Several delegations supported a proposal not to allow colours in vegetable oils covered by the Standard. It was noted that tocopherols prevented colour loss during refining while they did not add or restore colour. The Committee decided that no colours should be permitted in vegetable oils, while noting the comments of the Delegation of Malaysia and the Observer from IFMA that the use of colours should be allowed for fats and oils used as ingredients of other products, such as margarine. The Committee retained a list of colours for use in animal fats.
23. The Committee agreed to reduce the maximum level of annatto extracts from 20 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg calculated as bixin or norbixin. The Committee also agreed to delete from the list β-apo-8'-carotenal and methyl and ethyl esters of β-apo-8'-carotenoic acid as it was noted that there was no technological justification for their uses.
24. The Committee agreed to use the Codex standard wording for flavours5.
25. The Committee decided to retain dilauryl thiodipropionate as this substance had already been endorsed by the CCFAC at the level of 200 mg/kg. The Committee decided not to replace mixed tocopherols concentrate with mixed tocopherols/tocotrienols as the latter was not included in the International Numbering System.
26. The Delegation of the Netherlands stated that as some additives were permitted in many foods, their total intake could exceed the ADIs, especially in the case of BHA and BHT which were allowed in fats and oils at relatively high levels, and expressed the wish that the CCFAC would consider the use of BHA and BHT in foods as to its technological justification and total intake. It was noted that BHA and BHT had been evaluated by JECFA and that the maximum levels of use had been endorsed by the CCFAC.
5 The decision was also applied to the Draft Standard for Named Vegetable Oils.
3.6 Anti-foaming Agents
27. The Committee noted that the use of anti-foaming agents was necessary only for fats and oils used for deep-frying where foaming caused problems and that silicon dioxide had no anti-foaming function. The Committee therefore decided to delete the term “singly or in combination with silicon dioxide” and to specify that polydimethylsiloxane was permitted for fats and oils used for deep-frying6.
28. Some delegations pointed out that additives were mostly needed for fats and oils used as ingredients in other products and that a distinction might be made with oils intended for direct consumption in this respect.
29. Some delegations expressed the view that the peroxide value for virgin oils and cold pressed oils should be increased to 15 meq/kg as it could exceed 10 meq/kg in practice for such oils, although their quality was not significantly affected. The Committee however retained the current value of 10 meq/kg, which was consistent with the decision made for the Draft Standard for Named Animal Fats.
Status of the Draft Standard for Edible Fats and Oils Not Covered by Individual Standards
30. The Committee decided to advance the Draft Standard to Step 8 of the Procedure for adoption by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its 22nd Session. The amended text is attached to this report as Appendix III.
DRAFT STANDARD FOR NAMED VEGETABLE OILS6
31. The Delegation of France raised the issue of oils made from new oilseed varieties which might have a different fatty acid composition from those obtained from current oilseed varieties. If the specifications in Section 2 were strictly applied, it would cause problems of denomination; one such example was high oleic acid sunflowerseed oil (compared to traditional sunflowerseed oil high in linoleic acid). The Committee discussed whether oils from selected, hybridized or genetically modified varieties and with a different composition should be denominated as the reference oil from the same species; and whether their importance in trade justified their inclusion in the standard. The Committee noted that oils such as safflower oil, soya beans oil and flax oil with a different fatty acid composition would be increasingly present on the market, and that low erucic acid rapeseed oil had already been incorporated in the standard. Recognizing that this area was developing rapidly and needed thorough studies, the Committee decided to identify those oils which would require further work and possibly amendments to this Standard (see also para. 105) and agreed to keep the Scope as drafted.
32. The Committee decided not to include a definition of sunflowerseed oil with a high oleic acid content as it felt that a discussion on this matter would require a detailed study (see para. 32 above).
6 ALINORM 95/17, Appendix VIII; CX/FO 96/3 (comments from Malaysia, Spain and the United Kingdom); CRD 1 (comments from Thailand); CRD 4 (annotated text).
2.1.7 Mustardseed Oil
33. The Committee agreed to include yellow mustard to reflect current practice.
2.1.9–2.1.11 Palm Oil, Palm Olein, Palm Stearin
34. The Committee decided to delete the reference to different types of oils covered by each denomination to make these definitions consistent with others.
2.1.12–2.1.13 Rapeseed Oil, Rapeseed Oil-(Low Erucic Acid)
35. The Committee decided to include Brassica juncea L. in these provisions to reflect current practice.
36. The Committee had an extensive discussion on whether to include canola in synonyms of rapeseed oil - (low erucic acid). Several delegations stated that the term “canola” was widely used worldwide as a common name and supported the inclusion. However, several other delegations argued that it was a trade name and therefore should not be included. The Committee agreed not to include it at this stage and that further discussion would be needed in the future if new proposals were put forward.
37. The Delegation of Canada questioned the validity of the term “colza oil” in the English text as “colza” was a French word.
2.2 Other Definitions
38. The Committee decided to delete the word “fat” throughout this Section and to use a similar wording in 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 as in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the Draft Standard for Edible Fats and Oils Not Covered by Individual Standards. It was also decided not to include a new Section on refined vegetable oils.
4. Food Additives
39. The Committee confirmed its earlier decision not to allow colours in vegetable oils (see para. 22).
40. The Delegation of Malaysia, supported by Indonesia, proposed that a sentence be added to the effect that the provisions in the Appendix were advisory and should not be used as a basis for rejection, and emphasized the adverse economic impact of this practice at the import stage. The Committee noted that the introductory statement approved by the Commission only specified that the appendix was not subject to acceptance and this could not be amended by the Committee (see para. 5). Moreover, the status of appendices and advisory texts would be specifically considered by the CCGP and the Commission. The Committee therefore decided not to include this sentence.
1.7 Acid Value
41. The Committee agreed to insert the term “cold pressed and” before “virgin oils”.
1.8 Peroxide Value
42. The Delegation of Malaysia, supported by the Delegation of Indonesia, proposed to raise the peroxide value for palm olein and palm stearin from 5 to 10 meq/kg. The Committee however decided to maintain the current value and agreed that it might be reconsidered later if any difficulty arose (see also para. 29). The Delegations of Malaysia, Indonesia and the United States expressed their objection to this decision.
43. The Committee agreed to the proposal of the Delegation of Malaysia to introduce ranges of total carotenoids of 550–2500 and 300–1500 mg/kg for palm olein and palm stearin respectively.
44. The Committee decided to clarify in the titles that the values in the tables applied only to crude oils.
45. In order to address some questions on the definitions of the terms, “trace”, “ND” and “NS”, the Committee decided to make the following changes to the presentation of the tables:
46. The Committee corrected the minimum value of C16 in palm oil to read 40.1 and increased the minimum value of C12 in palm kernel oil to 45 in order to avoid overlap with other fractionated palm kernel products.
47. The Committee agreed to the proposal of the Delegation of the United Kingdom for amended C18 and C20 contents in maize oils, on the basis of studies made on samples collected worldwide.
48. The Committee decided not to increase the minimum level of C20:1 in rapeseed oil (low erucic acid) from 0.1 to 1.0 as it was noted that analytical results usually showed a range of 0–0.5% and when C22:1 was low, it was likely that C20:1 was also low as they follow the same elongation pathway. The Committee agreed to reduce the minimum level of C22:1 from 5 to 2 in order to avoid overlap with the range for rapeseed oil-low erucic acid.
49. It was agreed that governments and international organizations should be invited to provide GLC data of authentic oils, specifying: (a) ranges of all fatty acids; (b) numbers of samples investigated; and (c) GLC method used, (d) the nature of the sample analyzed (oil or oilseeds).
50. The Committee agreed to include a range of stable carbon isotope ratio of maize oil (-13.71 to -16.36). The Delegation of Spain, pointing out that no recognized method existed for such determination, proposed that the method should be sent to the CCMAS for endorsement before agreeing on the value itself. The Delegation of the United Kingdom indicated that a method using combustion and mass spectrometry had been published and that the C13/C12 ratio was method-independent. The Committee also agreed to raise the maximum iodine value of maize oil on the basis of research carried out in the United Kingdom.
51. The Committee agreed to amend the values for palm oil to include a range of apparent density, to widen the range of refractive index and to raise the temperature of refractive index measurement. The ranges for palm olein and palm stearin were amended to round down the minimum values and round up the maximum values of apparent density and refractive index ranges.
52. The Committee agreed to amend the range of refractive index of sunflowerseed oil to reflect the current situation.
53. The Delegation of France questioned the need for the values in the Table as it felt GLC analyses provided more accurate results for purity testing.
54. The Committee decided to amend the range of cholesterol in sunflowerseed oil to ≤0.7 as it was felt that the original value of 1.3 was too high but a proposed value of 0.5 could often be exceeded in practice.
55. The Committee agreed to amend the ranges of stigmasterol, beta-stigmasterol and delta-7 -stigmasterol in sunflowerseed oil.
56. The Committee agreed to amend the range of total tocopherols and tocotrienols in palm oil.
Status of the Draft Standard for Named Vegetable Oils
57. The Committee agreed to return the Draft Standard to Step 6 of the Procedure for further comments. The amended text is attached to this report as Appendix V.
DRAFT STANDARD FOR OLIVE OILS AND OLIVE POMACE OILS7
58. The Committee noted that IOOC would meet from 18–22 November 1996 and would revise the definition of virgin olive oil on the basis of the examination of chemical and organoleptic criteria including organoleptic testing. As this revision was very likely to have a major impact on the current draft Standard, the Committee decided to postpone discussion of the draft at this stage and to return it to Step 6, with the understanding that relevant amendments to other draft standards should be incorporated in the revised text.
Status of the Draft Standard for Olive Oils and Olive Pomace Oils
59. The Committee agreed to return the Draft Standard to Step 6 of the Procedure for redrafting, taking into consideration the decisions made by the IOOC, and further comments.
DRAFT CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE TRANSPORT AND STORAGE OF FATS IN BULK8 (Agenda Item 5)
60. The Committee considered the Code section by section and made the following amendments.
Use of the Code
7 ALINORM 95/17, Appendix X; CX/FO 96/3 (comments from Spain and IOOC); CRD 1 (comments from Thailand); CRD 5 (annotated text).
8 CL 1995/42-FO, CX/FO 96/4 (comments from Malaysia, European Community, FOSFA), CRD 1 (Thailand, United States), CRD 12 (International Parcel Tankers Association), CRD 6 (annotated text)
61. In reply to a question on the advisory nature of the Code, the Committee noted that, as indicated in the Introduction to similar texts, Codes of Practice were intended as advice to governments and it was for them to decide what use they wished to make of such texts. It was noted that under the SPS Agreement, Codex recommendations were a reference in international trade and any country establishing more stringent measures had to justify them on the basis of scientific evidence.
62. The Committee did not accept the following proposals of the Delegation of Malaysia: to delete the last sentence on information from relevant associations; to reinsert section 6.4 of the current Code (recognizing that existing installations may not meet requirements) and section 6.5 (on widely varying practical situations).
63. The Committee agreed to delete “in the design of their facility” at the end of the second sentence as it was not necessary to clarify the text.
64. The Delegation of Malaysia, supported by some delegations, expressed the view that if the requirements of the Code were described as “minimum”, higher requirements might be put forward in international trade and proposed to refer to “recommended requirements”. The Committee had an exchange of views on this question and it was recalled that in the framework of Codex, minimum requirements were understood as ensuring an appropriate level of consumer protection. Several delegations supported the reference to minimum requirements and the Committee agreed to retain the current text.
65. The Committee also agreed that the title of the Code should be “Recommended Code of Practice”, which would be consistent with current Codex practice for such texts.
66. The Delegation of Malaysia proposed to delete the reference to the Lists of Acceptable Previous Cargoes and recalled its earlier request for this matter to be considered by the CCFAC. The Secretariat indicated that the 26th Session of the CCFAC had decided that the actual lists of acceptable and banned previous cargoes should not be subject to endorsement as the elaboration of such lists was the responsibility of other international bodies.9 In the meantime, it had also been decided that the Committee on Food Hygiene would undertake the elaboration of a Code of Practice for All Foodstuffs Transported in Bulk.
67. Several delegations supported the reference to a positive list as this was an effective measure to prevent contamination and it was currently used in trade, and the Committee agreed to retain the current text. The Delegation of Malaysia objected to this decision.
3. Storage and Transportation
68. The Committee agreed to consider this section as amended on the basis of the FOSFA proposals, as presented in document CX/FO 96/4 containing written comments. The Delegation of Malaysia objected to sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.3 as it felt not enough time had been available to consider the extensive rearrangement and amendments to the text proposed and therefore the earlier text should be retained.
3.1.3 Road and Rail Tankers
69. The Committee agreed to indicate that the tank could be made of “mild steed coated with epoxy resin”, in addition to stainless steel.
9 ALINORM 95/12, paras. 16–19
70. The Committee agreed that the requirements for materials should also apply to heating facilities. It was further agreed to specify that materials should be suitable for contact with food and to delete the reference to “appropriate legislation”. Section 3.1.4 (d) dealing with the same subject was consequently deleted.
71. The Committee discussed the opportunity of allowing zinc silicate coatings for mild steel tanks, as zinc could migrate into the oil and cause its oxidation when the acid value was higher than one. Some delegations felt that a value of 2 might still be appropriate and it was also noted that temperature should be taken into account when evaluating the risk of deterioration and contamination. The Committee agreed to allow such coatings, with a reference to the risk of deterioration for crude oils and fats with a high acid value.
3.1.5 Heating Facilities - Tanks
72. The Committee noted a proposal of the Delegation of Indonesia to allow heating coils of mild steel but reasserted the view that only stainless steel should be used.
73. The Committee agreed to delete the second paragraph referring to the International Association of Seed Crushers (ISC) Handbook as the code should be self contained.
(a) Bare Hot Water Pipes and (b) Bare Steam Pipes
74. The Committee agreed to allow mechanical or vacuum pump draining of coils, as an alternative to self draining.
(c) External Heat Exchangers
Thermal Heating Fluids (THFs)
75. The Committee had an extensive discussion on the use of thermal heating fluids other than hot water and steam. The Delegation of the United States indicated that a thorough risk analysis had been conducted to allow the use of such fluids, especially regarding the non-toxicity of the substances used, and that specific requirements were applied concerning equipment and operating procedures, which had effectively prevented contamination of the oils. The Delegation also pointed out that the least trade restrictive measures of prevention should be preferred.
76. Some delegations supported the use of THFs while others indicated that they did not allow it in their legislation due to possible contamination. The Observers from FEDIOL and IFMA expressed the view that while the new fluids might not be toxic, there were no studies of their stability or toxicity after long use, that it was difficult to detect old fluids, and it was not possible to control the risks of contamination during transport. For several delegations the use of THFs would mean a step backwards from the present practice of preventing contamination to continuous control at all stages of transport and storage.
77. The Committee agreed to include a paragraph at the end of section (c) to the effect that THFs should not be used except when agreed between contracting parties and national authorities on the basis of safety evaluation, risk assessment and inspection procedures. The Delegation of Malaysia objected to the insertion of this paragraph.
4.1.2 Temperatures during Storage and Transport
78. The Committee had an exchange of views on the possibility to allow one day heating at a rate of 15°C with an agitator, as an alternative to three days heating at a rate of 5°C over a 24 hours period (without agitator). Some delegations pointed out that oxidation increased with the use of an agitator and that the localized temperature could be higher than appropriate at a high rate of heating, while other delegations felt that agitation could be used if necessary precautions were taken, in accordance with the recommendations set out in sections 3.1.7 and 3.1.8. As no consensus was reached on this amendment, the current text was retained.
79. The Committee agreed to delete sections 4.2.1 Tanks and 4.2.2 Pipelines, as they were already covered in the provisions of the preceding sections.
80. The Committee agreed to specify that the authorities might require evidence of previous cargo details.
81. The Committee agreed to delete the opening sentence referring to the IASC as the code should be self contained.
82. The Committee agreed to delete the name and addresses of national and international organizations as it was not possible to establish an exhaustive list, and reasserted its position that the Bibliography provided useful information and was needed in view of the provisions concerning the lists in section 2.1.3.
83. The Observer from the EC informed the Committee that a new EC List of acceptable previous cargoes had been approved by the Scientific Committee for Foods in September 1996. Although it was pointed out that this new list was not harmonized with the existing lists (FOSFA and NIOP), the Committee agreed to refer also to the EC list, and encouraged the three responsible organizations to coordinate and harmonize their work in this area.
Status of the Draft Recommended Code of Practice for the Storage and Transport of Edible Oils and Fats in Bulk
84. The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Code, as included in Appendix IV, to the 22nd Session of the Commission for adoption at Step 8. The Delegation of Malaysia objected to this decision as many amendments to the current code were not justified in its view and all issues had not been solved. The Delegation of Indonesia expressed the view that the text should be returned to Step 6 for further comments.
DRAFT STANDARD FOR MAYONNAISE10 (Agenda Item 6)
10 ALINORM 95/17, Appendix XI; CX/FO 96/5 (comments from Czech Republic); CRD 1 (comments from USA); and CRD 7 (annotated text)
85. The Committee recalled that it had been requested by the Commission to convert the existing Regional Standard for Mayonnaise into an international standard and noted that the 21st Session of the Commission had adopted the draft standard at Step 5 and asked the Committee to consider carefully fat and egg yolk content.
86. Several delegations were in favour of discontinuing work on conversion in view of limited international trade and the difficulty to reach consensus on the draft. Several other delegations were in favour of proceeding with this work as they stressed that the draft standard was already at Step 7, that mayonnaise was an important commodity for them, and international trade was growing.
87. The Committee decided to report to the Commission that no consensus could be reached on whether to continue the elaboration of the international standard for mayonnaise and to request its guidance. The Committee noted that the existing European Regional Standard for Mayonnaise would still be valid should the conversion into a worldwide standard be discontinued.
PROPOSED DRAFT STANDARD FOR FAT SPREADS11(Agenda Item 8)
88. The Committee recalled that the Proposed Draft Standard had been returned to Step 3 by the Commission as several issues concerning the scope and definitions remained to be settled. The Committee considered the sections identified below and made the following amendments.
89. The Committee agreed that the title should refer to “fat spreads and blended spreads” as blended spreads were proposed for inclusion in the definition. The Committee agreed that the French version should refer to “matières grasses tartinables”, as proposed by the Delegation of France.
90. Several delegations and the Observer from the EC expressed the view that the current value of 95% should be amended to 90% as fats were not spreadable if the percentage was higher, while some delegations felt that a maximum was not needed. The Observer from IFMA pointed out that the spreadable quality of the product was conditional on the amount of liquid oils rather than the total percentage of fat. The Committee had an exchange of views on this question and agreed to leave the current figure of 95% in square brackets for further comments.
91. Notwithstanding a suggestion to extend the scope to include fat spreads for other purposes, such as baking or frying, the Committee reasserted its position that the standard covered products intended primarily as spreads, with the understanding that their actual use depended on consumer preference.
92. In section 2.1 Fat Spreads, some delegations and the Observer from the EC supported a proposal to indicate that fat spreads were “solid at 20°C”. Some delegations pointed out that the word “solid” could be interpreted in different ways and the Committee agreed to replace it with “firm and spreadable” for clarification purposes.
11 CL 1996/10-FO, CX/FO 96/6 (comments from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Spain, South Africa, European Community, European Food Emulsifier Manufacturers' Associations), CRD 1 (United States, Australia, MARINALG International), CRD 8 (revised text), CRD 9 (annotated text), CRD 13 (IDF, IFMA).
93. In section 2.2 Edible Fats and Oils, the Committee discussed a proposal of the Delegation of the United States to include fats and oils of synthetic origin, in order to allow the use of products such as salatrim and facilitate technological innovation. Some delegations expressed the view that the use of synthetic fats might be a problem for consumers and that they should not be included at this stage. The Committee agreed to solicit additional information on the use of synthetic fats for further consideration and decided there was no need to specify the origin of the fats and oils used as raw materials as they were adequately described in the first sentence. The following additional provisions were added to clarify the text: the use of small amounts of other lipids; the safety of fats obtained from slaughtered animals; the use of fats subjected to modification processes.
3. Essential Composition and Quality Factors
94. The Committee agreed to specify that fat spreads and blended spreads should contain a minimum of 10% total fat.
3.1.1 Fat Spreads
95. The Committee noted a proposal from the Delegation of Japan to allow up to 50% milk fat in margarine but retained the current definition, whereby fat spreads should include a maximum of 3% milk fat. Due to time constraints this section was not discussed in detail.
3.1.2 Blended Spreads
96. The Committee agreed to use the same categories as for fat spreads, according to the percentage of fat: blend; three-quarter blend; half fat blend; blended spread.
97. The Delegation of Brazil indicated that names such as half fat did not correspond to current use in that country, and proposed to use as an alternative the name of the product in conjunction with the percentage of fat (such as “margarin 60”). It was noted that this should be discussed under the labelling requirements; however, the Committee did not discuss them at the current session.
98. The Committee noted that a list including the proposals from a number of countries had been proposed by the Working Group. The Committee agreed that octyl gallate, dodecyl gallate and starch sodium octenylsuccinate had not been allocated an ADI by JECFA and should not be included in the list.
99. It was agreed to circulate this section as part of the draft for further comments. In particular, specific information should be provided on the following proposals: the use of 100 (i) curcumin or (ii) turmeric according to GMP, although an ADI existed and a level of 5 mg/kg had been endorsed by CCFAC; the exact substances covered by pregelatinised starches, starch acetate (1420 or 1421). It was also suggested to identify the additives which were specific to margarine and it was proposed to identify the function of additives in order to avoid the use of a “miscellaneous” category.
Status of the Proposed Draft Standard for Fat Spreads and Blended Fat Spreads
100. The Committee agreed that a number of issues had not been discussed in detail at the present session and decided to return the Proposed Draft, as included in Appendix VI, to Step 3 for further comments and consideration by the next session.
PROPOSED DRAFT REVISED STANDARD FOR SPECIFIED VEGETABLE FAT PRODUCTS AND PROPOSED DRAFT REVISED STANDARD FOR SPECIFIED ANIMAL OR MIXED ANIMAL AND VEGETABLE FATS PRODUCTS12(Agenda Item 8)
101. The Committee recognized that there was no significant international trade of alternative products to ghee and therefore no need to establish standards in this area. The Committee agreed to recommend to the Commission to discontinue the work on these proposed draft revised standards and to revoke both current Standards.
12 CL 1996/9; CX/FO 96/7 (comments from Indonesia, Pakistan, Poland, Spain and EFEMA); CRD 1 (comments from Australia and USA).
REVISION OF METHODS OF ANALYSIS PROVISIONS IN STANDARDS FOR FATS AND OILS13(Agenda Item 9)
102. The report of the Working Group on Methods of Analysis was presented by the Chairman of the Group, Dr. R. Wood (UK).
103. The Committee noted that the use of diethyl ether (ISO 3596–1) and hexane (ISO 3596–2) for extraction in the determination of unsaponifiable matter would give different results and that in the case of defining methods14, only one method must be selected for use. The Delegation of Malaysia pointed out that unsaponifiable matter in Table 2 of the Draft Standard for Named Vegetable Oils might need to be reconsidered if the data were based on the extraction using different solvent (s) from that used in the currently recommended method.
104. The Observer from IOOC indicated that, for olive oils, certain references should be corrected and expressed the view that the current methods for the determination of sterols, unsaponifiable and peroxide value should be retained.
105. The Committee agreed to include the methods of analysis recommended by the Working Group in the relevant standards with the understanding that they would be sent to the CCMAS for endorsement.
13 CL 1995/22-FO; CX/FO 96/8 (comments from Denmark, France, Malaysia, Spain, United Kingdom, AOAC and IOOC); CRD 1 (comments from Thailand); CRD 14 (report of the Working Group).
14 A method which determines a value that can only be arrived at in terms of the method per se (Codex Alimentarius Commission Procedural Manual, Ninth Edition, page 79).
OTHER BUSINESS, FUTURE WORK AND DATE AND PLACE OF NEXT SESSION (Agenda Item 10)
106. The Committee noted that further consideration of the mayonnaise standard would be conditional on the decision of the Commission and that future work would include the following items:
107. It was agreed that a Circular Letter would be sent to collect information concerning vegetable oils obtained from new oilseed varieties or species not already covered; if specific proposals were put forward, amendments to the current draft standard or proposals for new work would need to be considered (see also para. 31).
108. The Committee noted that the date and place of the next session would be determined in consultaion between the host country and Codex Secretariats, subject to the approval of the Commission.
SUMMARY STATUS OF WORK
|Subject Matter||Step||Action by||Document reference in ALINORM 97/17|
|Draft Standard for Named Animal Fats||8||Governments 22nd CAC||para. 18 Appendix II|
|Draft Standard for Edible Fats and Oils not Covered by Individual Standards||8||Governments 22nd CAC||para. 30 Appendix III|
|Draft Revised Code of Practice for the Storage and Transport of Fats and Oils in Bulk||8||Governments 22nd CAC||para. 84 Appendix IV|
|Draft Standard for Named Vegetable Oils||6||Governments CCFO||para. 57 Appendix V|
|Draft Standard for Olive Oils and Olive-Pomace Oils||6||Governments CCFO||para. 59|
|Proposed Draft Standard for Fat Spreads and Blended Fat Spreads||3||Governments CCFO||para. 100 Appendix VI|
|Proposed Draft Standards for Specified Vegetable Fat Products and for Specified Animal or Mixed Animal and Vegetable Fat Products||6||22nd CAC||para. 101|
|Proposed Draft Standard for Mayonnaise||6||22nd CAC||para. 87|