PC 89/5
(a)
-Add.1 |
| PC 89/5
(a)
-Add.1 |
Eighty-ninth Session |
Rome, 5-9 May 2003 |
Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and Other FAO and WHO Food Standards Work |
Addenda |
World Health Organization Comments and Committee Responses
Discussion in the Programme Development Committee of WHO – December 2002 (unofficial summary)
Discussion in the 111th Session of the Executive Board of WHO – January 2003 (unofficial summary)
1. FAO Management wishes to compliment the Evaluation Team and the Independent Expert Panel (Evaluation) for their excellent report, for the depth of their analysis, and for the thoughtfulness of their proposals. Many of these proposals are found suitable, relevant and forward-looking. FAO Management welcomes the findings and recommendations that are presented with a view to enabling Codex to serve the needs, and to maintain the strong support, of all countries and major interest groups. It shares this aim and reiterates its commitment to continue to support Codex and Codex-related activities, with emphasis on science-based advice and capacity building.
2. FAO Management wishes to reaffirm the high importance that it attaches to food standards for the protection of consumer health and for the facilitation of domestic and international trade. It also emphasises that the provision of scientific advice to support standard setting activities and technical assistance for capacity building, particularly in developing countries, are critical for food security and fostering economic development in all countries.
3. FAO Management shares the Evaluation’s view that a comprehensive and clear mandate (rec. 4) needs to be developed for Codex. It considers that this mandate should be developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and submitted to the Governing Bodies of FAO and WHO for decision. FAO Management also agrees that Codex should continue to be “housed within FAO and WHO” (rec. 7).
4. FAO Management notes that the recommendations contained in the Report result in very substantial budget increases for both FAO and WHO in the immediate order of US$ 4 million per biennium. Depending upon the total resource levels approved for the FAO and WHO budgets for 2004-05, absorption of all additional resource requirements necessary to implement the recommendations would be difficult. FAO will, on its part, try its best to mobilise resources for this high priority area. For the Regular Programme budget, guidance will have to come from the FAO’s Governing Bodies on how this priority might be addressed, particularly if additional resources to FAO (or WHO) are not approved for 2004-05. As Codex and independent expert advice for food standards are expected to continue to be an expanding area and for the medium-term, FAO would propose to discuss with WHO and the Codex Alimentarius Commission the various modalities and options available for increasing funding through extra-budgetary contributions.
5. The following comments address the more specific recommendations, particularly those that would have far-reaching consequences for the future of Codex and FAO and WHO food standards work. Unless commented upon below, FAO Management is in general agreement with recommendations contained in the Report.
6. FAO Management appreciates recommendation 1, that Codex give high priority to food safety and health. Regarding health-related issues, it acknowledges the need to gradually increase work on the role of diet and nutrition in the prevention of chronic, non-communicable diseases. This work would be supported by FAO’s ongoing programmes on good agricultural, manufacturing and veterinary practices within a food chain approach.
7. Regarding the scope of Codex work (rec. 1, 2 and 3), FAO Management accepts the priority accorded to the health and safety aspect, bearing in mind the expectation of Members that international food trade issues also need to be given due consideration as required by the existing WTO agreements, particularly TBT. In this respect, it notes that certain aspects of Codex work on product descriptors and informational labelling would need to continue, and recommends that those aspects of trade that require international regulation but cannot be established by the trading partners alone should be addressed by Codex.
8. With regard to recommendation 5, FAO Management notes that the decisions of the Commission, which is a joint body of FAO and WHO, are reported, as necessary, to the respective Governing Bodies of these organizations through their Directors-General - in the case of FAO, to the Conference. FAO Management is of the view that while this hierarchy of reporting does not necessarily need not be changed, ways of improving the efficiency and transparency of the process should be explored. In order to ensure that the implications for other FAO work related to food standards be appropriately addressed, the FAO Conference could decide that certain types of issues/recommendations contained in reports of Codex be regularly considered by appropriate specialized FAO Committees.
9. FAO Management agrees that Codex and OIE should intensify collaboration to minimise overlaps and avoid gaps in standard setting relating to food safety and animal health (rec. 8).
10. FAO Management agrees to the proposed replacement of the Codex Executive Committee by a Codex Executive Board (rec. 9 and 10) charged with more strategic and managerial responsibilities. It agrees that the Executive Board should not have the authority to adopt standards. FAO Management agrees to the proposed composition of the Executive Board but suggests that the participation of observers would need to be addressed by the Commission.
11. FAO Management supports in principle the proposal for the establishment of a Standards Management Committee (rec.11), which would facilitate the Commission’s work with regard to priority setting and work planning for standards development. Its proposed functions (para. 96) and composition (para. 98) would need further consideration by the Commission.
12. FAO Management acknowledges the Evaluation’s appreciation of the Codex Secretariat’s effective and member-oriented work (para. 100). It agrees with the observation that resources and manpower available to it are insufficient compared to the steadily increasing workload, which is resulting in “certain functions as being inadequately served”. In this regard, FAO Management notes the proposed upgrading of the post of Secretary to the Commission to Executive Secretary (para. 103 and rec. 13). While the rationale given is appreciated - the complexity of Codex work, the technical and managerial expertise required, and the need for international visibility - FAO Management feels that, in view of the recent upgrading, it would be premature to further upgrade the post at this time.
13. As regards the proposed organizational change (rec. 14), to move the Secretariat from within the Food and Nutrition Division (ESN) , FAO Management is of the view that the current location is appropriate, given that ESN remains the principal area of relevant expertise in FAO and that the relations with other expertise in FAO can be reinforced by other means.
14. FAO Management notes the proposal that “the appointment of the Secretary would be carried out in consultation with Codex” (rec. 14), but would need to examine specific procedures in order to consider this proposal further. It recalls that the appointment of the Secretary is the prerogative of the Directors-General of FAO and WHO.
15. FAO Management agrees that employment of part of the Secretariat by WHO would be “administratively cumbersome” (para. 105) and supports the current practice whereby all job descriptions are prepared jointly, and secretariat staff selected jointly, by FAO and WHO. It would be pleased to consider any additional measures that would make this “joint nature” of the Secretariat still more visible and effective.
16. FAO Management is fully aware of the increasing demands being placed upon Codex and of the need to increase the current staff and financial resources (rec. 15). In this context, and as recognised by the Evaluation, attention is drawn to the current Joint FAO/WHO Programme budget in which the FAO share is about 75 percent. (Para. 4 above also refers.)
17. FAO Management agrees with recommendation 16 that Codex should undertake a review of General Subject and Commodity Committees. With regard to the suggested possible reduction of the treatment of health-related work in the commodity committees/task forces, it would emphasise that such a reduction should not lead to a decline in scientific soundness of standards which would still require the input of commodity-specific expertise, including that for best practices.
18. FAO Management concurs with the Evaluation’s analysis of risk communication and with the recommendations 29 and 30. It draws attention to the fact that communication of risk to the public (consumers) requires further consultation between FAO and WHO and other partners concerned to formulate a common strategy on risk communication.
19. FAO Management observes that the Report focuses on the provision by FAO and WHO of scientific advice on risk assessment to service Codex needs. In this regard, it underlines that the provision of such advice is broader in scope than Codex alone and is intended to serve member countries, in particular those that do not have the capacity to carry out their own risk assessments, as well as other clients. The system utilised for the provision of scientific advice by FAO and WHO needs to be flexible enough to accommodate these variety of services and clients. It needs also to have the necessary resources to address emerging issues independently or in advance of them being addressed by Codex.
20. FAO Management agrees that the Joint Expert Meeting on Microbiological Risk Assessment (JEMRA) be ratified as a permanent committee (rec. 32) and is willing to implement this in consultation with WHO. Operational steps would include the definition of JEMRA’s terms of reference and the creation of a post of Joint Secretary to JEMRA in FAO.
21. FAO Management agrees that there should be a clear budget and human resource allocation for scientific advice and risk assessment (rec. 33) and agrees that prioritisation is necessary, even though the situation is not the same for all three committees. FAO will examine the feasibility of making relevant proposals to the July 2003 Session of the Commission, in consultation with WHO.
22. FAO Management agrees with recommendation 34 that increased funding for risk assessment is a top priority.
23. FAO Management agrees that the quality of scientific advice is highly dependent upon the adequacy of the data (rec. 35) and that, although generally sound, improvements in the database could be achieved through greater coverage from developing countries. This applies particularly to data on dietary intake and on production and processing practices.
24. FAO Management supports the emphasis on the independence of experts (para.189). It agrees in principle with the payment of fees to experts (rec. 36) but proposes that such fees should be paid in relation to the preparatory work done by experts and not be linked to their attendance at expert meetings, and, as experts are normally drawn from government risk assessment agencies, any payment should be cleared with the agency concerned.
25. FAO Management agrees with the proposals for improving quality, quantity and timeliness of scientific advice to Codex. With regard to recommendation 37, it agrees that consultancy studies on expert advice and risk assessment should be undertaken. However, due to the many elements to be considered, including emerging issues, the process would require time and substantial additional resources.
26. FAO Management supports in principle the establishment of a Scientific Committee (rec. 38). However, it considers that its rationale needs further elaboration while the composition of the Committee, its terms of reference, its interaction with the relevant Codex Committees and FAO and WHO and reporting arrangements need to be clarified. FAO Management is of the opinion that the establishment of a Scientific Committee and related issues could be addressed within the framework of activities reflected under rec. 37.
27. FAO Management supports the enhancement of a coordinating function among the scientific expert committees. With regard to the creation of a post of Joint Coordinator (rec. 39) it considers that the rationale for the proposed Coordinator would need to be further substantiated and the terms of reference discussed and carefully revised to avoid duplication and conflicts of authority. In particular, the interaction with the Joint Secretaries of the expert committees would need clarification. FAO Management is willing to discuss these issues further with WHO. The proposed posting of the Joint Coordinator at WHO is noted. Procedures to ensure effective interaction with the Codex Secretariat and modalities of joint funding would need to be elaborated.
28. FAO Management agrees with recommendation 40, that FAO and, in particular, WHO markedly increase their contributions to health risk assessment and expert advice to contribute to Codex. The suggested distribution of work, which would be “in addition to the immediate direct resource requirements”, needs to be carefully considered further by both agencies.
29. FAO Management underlines the importance of capacity building to enhance the participation of developing countries in Codex work, for improving the quality and safety of their local food supplies, and for facilitating access to international markets. It agrees with the overall assessment of FAO’s capacity building activities and of the needs of developing member countries in this regard. It confirms its willingness to explore means for increasing staff resources for capacity building in food safety and, in particular, to create additional posts for food safety officers in priority developing regions and sub-regions subject to the availability of resources.
30. FAO Management welcomes the recommendation to enhance co-ordination between FAO and WHO at country level aimed at more effective use of FAO/WHO resources and avoiding overlaps and inconsistencies (rec. 41). However, it is of the opinion that a formal, a priori delineation of responsibilities and division of work is impractical as capacity building often involves joint and individual activities determined on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, FAO agrees that FAO and WHO inform the Commission regularly of their capacity-building activities.
31. FAO Management affirms its support to mobilising donor funding for capacity building in food safety (rec. 42), as well as its commitment to promote complementarities and consistency between the existing and planned trust funds and projects.
16. The Director-General of WHO welcomes the Report of the Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO Food Standards Work. Within a relatively short time and thanks to the input of governments and many other stakeholders in the process of setting international standards for food, a thorough and comprehensive analysis has been made. The recommendations made in the report will prove useful in ensuring that the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and its subsidiary bodies better achieve their objectives, that scientific advice to CAC is strengthened, and that participation of Member countries, in particular developing countries, is improved.
17. The Director-General considers Codex to be an important entity which significantly contributes to the objectives of WHO in the areas of food safety and nutrition, and is pleased to note the recommendation that the scope of the CAC should fully cover health-related aspects of food standards. This should translate into WHO’s increased direct involvement in the CAC and enhanced capacity within WHO for risk assessment, include a coordination function, for which sufficient resources will be made available.
18. The Director-General supports the recommendation that the CAC should remain a cosponsored programme of its parent organizations. The recommendations to define its mandate and independence are acceptable within the limits of a budget and programme of work approved by the parent organizations. Such definitions should explicitly reflect the CAC’s important role in food safety and nutrition, and in promoting sound regulatory frameworks through establishing guidelines on national food-control systems. This would also represent a recognition of the activities currently undertaken by the CAC, as described in the strategic framework of the CAC for the period 2003-2007. A clear revised mandate should be developed for the CAC and submitted to the governing bodies of FAO and WHO for adoption.
19. The Director-General stresses that the activities currently relevant to the CAC should remain joint activities of WHO and FAO, particularly in relation to risk assessment and capacity building. She will work together with the Director-General of FAO to ensure that the coordination and distribution of work between the two organizations are optimized in order to draw on mutual strengths and synergies. Capacity building in developing countries, which should enable them to represent their interests effectively in the CAC and in WTO negotiations, should benefit from the proposed 12-year FAO/WHO trust fund supported in 2002 by the Executive Board of the CAC. The integration of food safety, food standards, food production and food trade considerations in relation to an agreed focus on sustainable development would represent a significant step forward for developing economies.
20. The Director-General fully supports the recommendation to move forward expeditiously with the implementation of the agreed recommendations through the establishment of a joint task force. She will work with FAO to convene a consultation urgently to review the status and procedures of the expert bodies in order to improve the quality, quantity and timeliness of scientific advice as requested by the CAC at its twenty-fourth session in July 2001.
The Policy Perspective
21. The results of the evaluation of Codex are reviewed in the following paragraphs from a policy perspective, focusing on the relevance of the CAC in relation to WHO strategies for food safety and nutrition. The purpose of the review is to inform the Executive Board of the potential implications for areas of work related to the CAC where WHO may increase its input, in order to improve protection of human health.
22. WHO has already elaborated strategies on food safety and nutrition, and is in the process of developing new strategies in areas relevant to the work of the CAC, to which the CAC also contributes in return. In May 2000, the Fifty-third World Health Assembly requested the Director-General, inter alia, “to give greater emphasis to food safety” (resolution WHA53.15). The Executive Board at its 109th Session in January 2002 endorsed the draft global WHO food safety strategy, with the primary goal of reducing the health and social burden of foodborne disease. The approaches to achieve this goal include enhancing the scientific and public health role of WHO in the CAC, strengthening surveillance systems for foodborne diseases, improving risk assessments, and strengthening capacity-building in developing countries.
23. The report of the evaluation has highlighted the need for the CAC to give higher priority to setting science-based standards related to food safety, nutrition related issues and health. This work should include the establishment of internationally agreed guidelines for national food control systems, based on the criteria of consumer health protection and fair practices in the food trade, and the promotion of optimal nutrition among consumers through adequate labelling and the use of health claims, to assist them in making the right choices.
24. WHO has started work on a global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Promoting healthier diets through appropriate labelling of food and the use of health claims are tools within this strategy.
25. WHO already has in place a global strategy on infant and young child feeding, which will combat malnutrition. Food supplements, and in particular food fortification, are among the various tools available to this end. In May 2002, the Fifty-fifth World Health Assembly specifically requested the Codex Alimentarius Commission “to continue to give full consideration ... to action it might take to improve the quality standards of processed foods for infants and young children, and to promote their safe and proper use at an appropriate age, including through adequate labelling, consistent with the policy of WHO, in particular the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes” (See resolution WHA55.25).
26. The timely provision of scientific advice is crucial to enable the CAC to establish health-related standards. The report highlights, a clear need to modernize and transform the current process and working arrangements of expert bodies such as the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues, and to create an overarching and uniform approach for assessment of risks associated with food. Such an approach would include consideration of microbiological risks and risks related to foods derived from biotechnology. In order to reflect best practice in this area, peer-review methodology drawing on the work of others should be used to reach science-based conclusions at the international level more speedily, without jeopardizing the quality, independence and transparency of the advice. Through strengthening of surveillance and monitoring systems of foodborne diseases, WHO will develop data from around the world on health risks from food as well as the related disease burden, enabling the CAC and governments to define their priorities better.
Conclusions
27. The CAC is an important instrument to achieve the goals of the global WHO food safety strategy, and it can also significantly contribute to the work of WHO in the area of nutrition.
28. In May 2003, the Fifty-sixth World Health Assembly is expected to consider the necessary action to support the work of the CAC, including proposals to increase WHO’s engagement, notably also focusing on appropriate risk-assessment advice.
In his statement to the Executive Board the Chairman of the Programme Development Committee noted that in its consideration of the Evaluation Report members had commended the work of the evaluation, and stressed the importance of ensuring implementation of the recommendations. A clearer separation of the roles of risk management and risk assessment was needed. The assumption of a prominent role for WHO in the food standards activity would help ensure that health concerns were the first priority in standard setting.
The Chairman in his summing-up stated that he understood that the Board wished to take note of the Report of the Evaluation and its possible implications for the work of WHO. The Board agreed that following consideration of the Evaluation Report by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the Director-General of WHO may prepare a resolution on the subject for the consideration of the World Health Assembly. In the debate by the Board three delegations spoke, all stressing the importance of Codex’s work and the role of WHO in that. The primary importance of health in food standards and the scientific base for standards was emphasized.
Twenty-fifth (Extraordinary) Session February 2003
1. The Codex Alimentarius Commission, having considered the report and recommendations of the Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and Other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards, expressed its appreciation to the parent Organizations for having initiated the Evaluation and ensuring that it was carried out in a consultative, efficient and effective manner. It also expressed its appreciation to the Evaluation Team and Expert Panel for their excellent report, the depth of the analysis and the comprehensive proposals and recommendations contained therein.
2. The Commission noted with satisfaction the finding of the Evaluation that its food standards had a very high importance to Members as a vital component of food control systems designed to protect consumer health and to ensure fair practices in the food trade. It endorsed the view that standards were a fundamental prerequisite in consumer protection but had to be looked at in the context of the total system throughout the food chain, especially for food safety.
3. The Commission recalled that Codex standards were used as references for Member Nations in relation to their obligations under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. In this regard, it recognized that many Member Nations with less developed economies or with economies in transition were able to use Codex standards directly as a basis for domestic legislation and standards setting in conformity with these Agreements. It noted that this was particularly true when standards were based on global data including those derived from developing countries.
4. The Commission supported the overall thrust of the Evaluation report and expressed its commitment to the implementation of strategies that would meet the objectives of the recommendations contained therein. It strongly agreed that these recommendations should be reviewed expeditiously. The Commission noted that since the 1991 Joint FAO/WHO Conference on Food Standards, Chemicals in Food and Food Trade, significant changes had been made in the Commission’s priorities and programmes with increased emphasis on food safety issues. This emphasis had resulted in an increased output of health-related standards and was now being extended to the whole food chain; this process would continue to be developed.
5. Noting the Evaluation’s recommendations concerning the Commission’s mandate, the Commission was of the opinion that its existing mandate to protect consumers’ health and to ensure fair practices in the food trade continued to be appropriate but might be discussed in the future. Within this mandate, the Commission emphasized that its first priority would be the development of standards having an impact on consumer health and safety.
6. In order to maintain the strong support from all Member Nations and stakeholders, the Commission agreed that in their response to the Evaluation, the Commission and its parent Organizations should work towards:
7. The Commission agreed that it should have greater independence, within the overall structure of FAO and WHO, for proposing and executing its work programme and budget, once approved by the two parent organizations.
8. The Commission concurred with the views expressed in the Evaluation Report that the Codex Secretariat was hard working, efficient and member-oriented but overworked and with insufficient resources to support the present activities of Codex. It strongly supported the recommendation that the Secretariat be expanded and that the seniority and composition of its staff should match the Commission’s increased requirements.
9. On the matter of expert advice to Codex, the Commission agreed fully with the view that this was a very important element to all Member Nations and to the Commission itself. It expressed the view that there needed to be sufficient capacity within the parent Organizations to ensure that scientific advice was provided on a timely basis. It also agreed that this work needed to have greater identity within the Organizations, stronger links to Codex priorities, and internal coordination as well as significantly increased resources. Its independence from external influences and its transparency need to be further reinforced within FAO/WHO. The Commission stated that there should also be greater distinction between the function of risk assessment undertaken by experts and that of risk management undertaken by Codex committees, while noting the linkages that needed to exist between these functions. The Commission emphasized that the provision of expert scientific advice was a joint responsibility of FAO and WHO and should continue to be so. It strongly recommended that WHO markedly increase its contribution to health risk assessment carried out by FAO/WHO expert committees and FAO/WHO Expert consultations. It also recommended that FAO strengthen its input in areas reflecting its responsibility and expertise. The Commission welcomed the statement by Dr Bruntland in her opening remarks to the present session that FAO and WHO would prepare for and convene as an immediate priority, the consultation requested by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its 24th Session4 on strengthening scientific support for Codex decision-making.
10. In the area of capacity building, the Commission welcomed the valuable initiatives described in the report including the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) operated by the WTO in collaboration with the World Bank, FAO, WHO, OIE, and in particular the new FAO/WHO Trust Fund to enable effective participation in Codex. It called upon FAO and WHO to undertake a major effort to mobilize extra-budgetary funds and foster coordinated bilateral assistance in capacity building. It also called for a more coordinated approach for capacity building between FAO and WHO and requested the parent bodies to urgently analyse their existing means of providing capacity building and inform the Codex Alimentarius Commission on how they will improve coordination and distribution of work drawing on their mutual strengths and synergies.
11. The Commission called upon FAO and WHO to provide additional Regular Programme resources, supplemented with extra-budgetary resources where necessary, to strengthen Codex and Codex-related work throughout the two Organizations.
12. The Commission called upon Member Governments to support the follow-up to the Evaluation process including through their statements made and positions taken in the World Health Assembly and the Council and Conference of FAO.
13. The Commission reiterated its commitment to pursue with all speed full consideration of the recommendations addressed to it in the Evaluation report and in this regard:
__________________________________
1 ALINORM 03/25/3 Add.1
2 ALINORM 03/25/3 Add.1
3 ALINORM 03/25/5, Appendix II.
4 ALINORM 01/41, para. 61.