CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT STANDARDS AND RELATED TEXTS (AGENDA ITEM 5)^[9]

General Considerations

32. The Commission considered a number of draft standards and related texts that had been developed by its subsidiary bodies. It considered standards and related texts submitted at Step 8 of the Uniform Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts and texts submitted at Step 5 of the Accelerated Procedure. It also considered texts submitted at Step 5 where, in certain cases, the subsidiary body had recommended the omission of Steps 6 and 7. The results of the Commission’s consideration of these standards and related texts are presented in tabular form in Appendix V of the present report. The following paragraphs of this report provide additional information concerning the discussions that took place on certain items or contain additional decisions taken by the Commission in regard to the adoption of certain texts.

33. The Delegations of Jordan and the United Arab Emirates expressed the need for draft standards submitted to the Commission for adoption to be presented in all languages of the Commission.

Matters pending from previous sessions of the Commission

Draft MRLs for Bovine Somatotropin^[10]

34. The 23^rd Session of the Commission had decided to hold the draft MRLs for Bovine Somatotropin at Step 8. The Commission noted that no requests had been received to change the status of the standard and therefore agreed to continue to hold the draft standard at Step 8.

Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Canned Sardines and Sardine-Type Products (Clupea benticki)^[11]

35. The Chairman of the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, recalled that the 21^st Session of the Commission had requested that the Accelerated Procedure should generally be used for the inclusion of additional species in relevant standards^[12], and this had been applied to consider Clupea benticki, as proposed by Chile. In application of its specific procedure, the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products had agreed to propose the inclusion of this species in the Standard for Sardines and Sardine-Type Products. No consensus had been reached in the 23^rd and 24^th Sessions of the Commission. The Commission was advised that the Committee had initiated a review of its current procedure for inclusion of additional species in standards.

36. The Delegation of Morocco expressed its objection to the amendment as the procedure had not been followed adequately since no criteria had been defined prior to examination by laboratories and Morocco had not participated in the process. The Delegation indicated that the current list of sardine-type products was based only on the mode of preparation, including species that were not taxonomically related to sardines, and that this created considerable confusion for consumers as to the nature of the product. The delegation therefore stressed the need for the Committee to review the current procedure by defining the scientific evaluation criteria before including any new species in the standard. This position was supported by many delegations.

37. The Delegation of Chile stressed that the current procedure for the inclusion of species had been followed, as the samples had been examined by three authorized laboratories from European countries, that its results should be accepted; and that there was no justification to delay further the process and the amendment should be adopted. This position was supported by several delegations.

38. The Delegation of Italy, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union, supported the revision of the procedure for the inclusion of new species in Codex standards in order to ensure that scientific criteria were applied in the process. The Delegation of Spain and others pointed out that the common name of species should be based on taxonomic criteria and that this was not the case in the present Standard; the revision of the procedure should ensure that the inclusion of species was based on scientific criteria and not on the presentation of the product.

39. The Commission, recognizing that there was no consensus, agreed to return the Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Canned Sardine and Sardine Type Products to the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products at Step 3, and recommended that the Committee continue its work on the revision of the procedure for the inclusion of new species. The Delegation of Chile expressed its reservation on this decision.

Animal Feeding

Proposed Draft Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding^[13]

40. The Delegation of the United States presented proposals for amendments to the text of the remaining controversial issues of the proposed draft Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding^[14], namely: the definition of a “feed additive”; the labelling of feeds containing foods derived from biotechnology; and the requirements for traceability/product tracing of animal feeds and feed ingredients. Many countries supported the final adoption of the Code with these proposed changes, while others were of the opinion that these issues, in particular labelling and traceability/product tracing, deserved a further examination by an additional meeting of the Task Force.

41. Noting the lack of consensus on these controversial issues, the Commission adopted the proposed draft Code on Good Animal Feeding at Step 5 and advanced the text to Step 8 (with the omission of Steps 6 and 7), with the exception of the definition of “feed additive” and paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 that were advanced to Step 6 only for further consideration by an additional session of the ad hoc Task Force on Animal Feeding. The Commission agreed that the Task Force would not consider any other issues. The text that had been advanced to Step 8 was held at that Step by the Commission pending finalization of the outstanding issues.

Cocoa Products and Chocolate

Draft Standard for Chocolate and Chocolate Products^[15]

42. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard at Step 8 with the understanding that the translation into the Spanish language of various parts of the standard would be revised before publishing. It also agreed that Section 6.1 related to methods on the Determination of Centre and Coating of Filled Chocolate and endorsed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling provided analytical traceability in relation to the basic chemical principles. The Commission noted that carnauba wax had been proposed as a food additive at the level of 500 mg/kg instead of GMP, and decided to refer this proposal to the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants for consideration.

Food Additives and Contaminants

Draft Code of Practice on the Prevention and Reduction of Patulin Contamination in Apple Juice and Apple Juice Ingredients in Other Beverages^[16]

Draft Maximum Levels for Patulin in Apple Juice and Apple Juice Ingredients in Other Beverages^[17]

43. The Commission noted that the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants had discussed the development of the proposed maximum level of 50 ìg/kg of patulin with a view to establishing a lower level of 25 ìg/kg in the future based on the application of the Code of Practice which was aimed at achieving lower patulin levels. The Commission supported the decision of the Committee to continue to collect data on the levels of patulin in apple juice and apple juice ingredients for other beverages with the aim of reconsidering a possible reduction of the maximum level once the code of practice had been implemented (after four years).

44. The Commission adopted the Code of Practice and the Maximum Levels for Patulin at Step 8.

Draft Maximum Levels for Ochratoxin A in Raw Wheat, Barley and Rye and Derived Products^[18]

45. The Delegation of India drew the attention of the Commission to the evaluation of the 56^th Session of JECFA, which had concluded that the difference in health risk between the proposed maximum level of 5 ìg/kg and a limit of 20 ìg/kg was negligible and that a maximum level of 20 ìg/kg could be adequate in terms of public health and safety. The Delegation, supported by many delegations, stated that the proposed maximum level was too low and should be returned to the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants for further consideration.

46. The Delegation of Greece speaking on behalf of the member countries of the European Union, and supported by other delegations, stated that the level of 5 ìg/kg, as proposed, was consistent with the ALARA principle and should be adopted for Raw Wheat, Barley and Rye but not to derived products, which were of little or no importance in international trade.

47. The Commission concluded that there was a lack of consensus on the adoption of the standard both regarding the appropriate maximum level and the inclusion, or exclusion, of the reference to derived products. The Commission returned the standard to Step 6 for further work by the Committee.

General Standard for Irradiated Foods: Draft Revision^[19]

48. The Delegation of Germany expressed its objection to the absence of a maximum limit of 10 kGy and stressed the need for further research on the health effects of radiolytic products especially those formed following the irradiation of fatty foods.

49. In contrast, the Delegation of the United States of America stated that doses of up to 30 kGy were necessary in some cases such as to kill micro-organisms on spices, and that the revised standard provided adequate controls to limit higher-dose irradiation to cases where it was needed and where it would not affect either wholesomeness or safety of the food. Many delegations spoke in support of the General Standard.

50. The Commission adopted the revised standard. The Delegations of Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Spain and Sudan expressed their reservations to this decision.

Foods Derived from Biotechnology^[20]

51. The Delegation of Japan, on behalf of the Chairperson of the Task Force, presented three texts that were sent by the Task Force to the Commission for adoption at Step 8 and one text at both Steps 5 and 8. The Delegation also expressed its appreciation to the host governments of the working groups established under the Task Force and FAO/WHO Expert Consultations.

52. The Commission adopted the “Draft Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology” and “Draft Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants” and “Draft Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Recombinant-DNA Microorganisms” at Step 8 and the “Proposed Draft Annex on Possible Allergenicity Assessment” at Steps 5 and 8, with modifications of translation of French and Spanish texts as proposed by France and Spain.

53. The Commission expressed its gratitude to the Chairperson of the Task Force, the Government of Japan as a host country for the contributions to successful conclusions of the Task Force.

Fish And Fishery Products^[21]

Draft Standard for Boiled Dried Salted Anchovies

54. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard as proposed by the Committee.

Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products^[22]

55. The Commission adopted the Draft Code of Practice with the amendments proposed by the Committee on Food Hygiene when it had endorsed the hygiene provisions.

Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

Draft Revised Provisions: Section 3 - Provisions concerning Sizing and Section 6.2.4 - Commercial Identification of the Codex Standards for Limes, Pummelos and Grapefruits^[23]

56. The Commission adopted the draft revised provisions: Section 3 - Provisions concerning Sizing and Section 6.2.4 - Commercial Identification of the Codex Standards for Limes, Pummelos and Grapefruits at Step 8. In taking this decision, the Commission recommended the necessary follow-up on this issue by the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. It noted the request by the Delegation of Indonesia to amend the size scale for pummelos, but also noted that any change at this stage might create interference in international trade.

Draft Codex Standard for Pitahayas^[24]

57. The Commission adopted the draft Codex Standard for Pitahayas at Step 8.

Draft Codex Standard for Sweet Cassava^[25]

58. The Commission adopted the draft Codex Standard for Sweet Cassava at Step 8.

Food Hygiene

Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables^[26]

59. The Delegation of India suggested amendments to the wording in Section 3.2.3 related to “personnel health” by deleting the reference to indirect contact of personnel with fresh fruits and vegetables. The Commission adopted the Draft Guidelines at Step 8 with this amendment. The Delegations of Canada and Finland expressed their reservations regarding this amendment.

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point System and Guidelines for its Application: Draft Revision^[27]

60. The Commission adopted the revised Guidelines at Step 8 as proposed. In doing so, it noted the importance of the document on the “Obstacles to the Application of the HACCP, Particularly in Small and Less Developed Businesses and Approaches to Overcome Them” being developed by FAO and WHO for future reference in the guidelines. The Commission encouraged the FAO and WHO to finalize plans for a project that will produce a report for government policy makers and small and/or less developed business based on above paper as soon as possible and agreed to report on the progress made on this project at the next session of the Commission.

Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems

Draft Guidelines for Food Import Control Systems^[28]

61. The Commission considered a proposal from the Delegation of Paraguay to the effect that the phrase “a reasonable interval” in paragraph 35 of the Guidelines was open to misinterpretation and should be clarified by the inclusion of a reference to “a previously agreed interval or period of time”. Several delegations noted that the text as proposed by the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems was consistent with the text of the WTO SPS Agreement, and also noted that the Committee would consider the development of an interpretation of the meaning of “a reasonable interval”, as new work. The Delegation of Switzerland also stressed the need for the term “Control Systems”, as used in the guidelines, to be defined, as indicated in the EU comment, but that this should not hold up adoption of the Guidelines.

62. The Commission adopted the Guideline at Step 8.

Draft Guidelines for the Judgment of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems^[29]

63. The observer from the WTO drew the attention of the Commission to parallel work being undertaken within the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and stressed the importance of finalizing these Guidelines in order to assist countries in implementing the equivalence provisions of the SPS Agreement. The Delegation of Switzerland noted that, in its opinion, the definition of sanitary measures went beyond the Codex mandate.

64. The Delegation of The Republic of Korea stated that the Section of the Guidelines dealing with the Procedure for the Determination of Equivalence did not contain sufficient information to enable the implementation of the Guidelines to the control of food trade and required further elaboration. The Delegation of Peru stated that it considered that the Section dealing with the General Principles for the Determination of Equivalence was subjective and required further clarification.

65. The Commission adopted the Guidelines as proposed and noted that the matters raised by the Delegations of Korea and Peru would be further considered by the Committee at its next meeting.

Food Labelling^[30]

Draft Amendment to the Guidelines for the Production Processing Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods: Section 5 - Criteria

66. The Commission noted the comments of the Delegation of the Philippines that the “exceptional circumstances” for the use of chemical substances should be better defined. The Commission adopted the Draft Amendment as proposed.

Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods: Class Names

67. The Commission adopted the Draft Amendment as proposed.

Draft Amendment to the Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling

68. The Delegation of Malaysia expressed the view that the declaration of trans-fatty acids should be required in order to provide adequate information to consumers on a complete listing of all fatty acids when such claims are made regarding the amount and types of fatty acids, and cholesterol, and to ensure consistency with the Table of Conditions for Nutrient Contents in the Guidelines for Use of Nutrition Claims that referred to trans-fatty acids in relation to the claims for saturated fat and cholesterol. The Delegation stated that it could not support the adoption of the draft amendment if this declaration was not included. This position was supported by several delegations.

69. Several other delegations pointed out that trans fatty acids should be defined in order to allow further consideration of labelling requirements and that current scientific evidence did not justify their declaration in all cases. These delegations supported the adoption of the draft amendment proposed by the Committee and also supported further work on this issue in the light of the advice that would be provided by the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses.

70. The Chair of the Committee on Food Labelling indicated that the Committee had discussed this question extensively and that, in view of the different views expressed by member countries, it had reached a consensus allowing the declaration of trans-fatty acids “according to national legislation”. The Committee had agreed to consider this question further when it received advice from the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses on the definition of trans-fatty acids.

71. The Delegation of Italy, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union, proposed to include a note to the effect that ‘the labelling of trans-fatty acids will come into force only after these have been defined by the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, as requested by the 31^st Session of the Committee on Food Labelling”. The Delegation also proposed to include a similar footnote to the section on vitamins and minerals (3.2.6.2) to indicate that the declaration of vitamins and minerals was subject to further review following advice from the that Committee. The Commission however agreed to retain the current text.

72. The Commission adopted the Draft Amendment as proposed and requested the Committee to continue its work on trans-fatty acids in cooperation with the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, and asked FAO and WHO to provide advice on the available scientific data, as required, in order to facilitate the resolution of this complex issue.

73. The Delegations of Malaysia, Singapore, Nigeria, Kenya, Indonesia, Tanzania, Swaziland and Sudan expressed their reservations on the adoption of the draft amendment.

Draft Guidelines for Use of Nutrition and Health Claims

74. The Chair of the Committee indicated that there had been large support and two objections in the Committee for the inclusion of “advertising” in the Scope, and noted that if this created difficulties for some countries, it might be deleted and further considered in the Committee. The Chair pointed out that all other sections of the Guidelines reflected the consensus in the Committee as a result of considerable work in recent years.

75. The Delegation of the United States supported the adoption of the Guidelines without the reference to “advertising”, as it would fundamentally change the scope of the Guidelines, and identified the need for a definition for the term advertising. This position was supported by several delegations.

76. The Delegation of Brazil expressed the view that it was essential for the Guidelines to address advertising in relation to nutrition and health claims and that the text should not be adopted if this reference was deleted. The Delegation pointed out that advertising was included in the terms of reference of the Committee and that a reference to advertising was already included in the Standard for the Labelling of and Claims for Prepackaged Foods for Special Dietary Uses.

77. Several delegations supported the extension of the scope to advertising as it was closely related to labelling and should follow the same principles in order to prevent consumer confusion. Some of these delegations indicated that as a compromise, they could accept its deletion at this stage in order to allow the adoption of the Guidelines, that would provide an important reference to facilitate regulation of health claims at the national level. These delegations also pointed out that if the reference to advertising was deleted at this stage, work on advertising should proceed in the Committee in view of the importance of this issue.

78. The Delegations of India, Singapore and Indonesia expressed their opposition to the development of guidelines for health claims in the framework of Codex as their view was that health claims should not generally be allowed. The Delegation of Malaysia, supported by the Delegation of the Philippines, expressed the view that the Guidelines should not be finalized until criteria for the scientific basis of health claims had been developed by the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses.

79. Some observers expressed the view that the mandate of the Committee was to include provisions on health claims in the Guidelines, not to expand their scope, and that the reference to advertising had been inserted without due consideration of all its implications. Consequently they supported the adoption of the Guidelines with the deletion of the provision on advertising. Some other observers expressed their general concerns with the use of health claims and highlighted the particular problems related to foods for infants and children. They stressed the need to retain the provisions on advertising if the Guidelines were adopted because advertising should be consistent with labelling and should not be used to mislead the consumer.

80. The Commission, recognizing that there was no consensus on substantial issues, agreed to return the Draft Guidelines for Use of Nutrition and Health Claims to Step 6 for further comments and consideration by the Committee. The Commission also requested the Committee to consider the development of a definition of advertising as related to health and nutrition claims.

Fats and Oils

Draft Revision of the Standard for Olive Oils and Olive Pomace Oils^[31]

81. The Delegations of Australia and New Zealand welcomed the adoption of the standard at Step 8 except for the level of linolenic acid 1.0% in the Section 3.9 of the Standard, which these countries requested should be returned to the Committee for further consideration. The delegations stated that the natural conditions in their countries contributed to the increased levels of linolenic acid, which made it difficult to accept reduction of the level from 1.5% in the present standard to 1.0% in the proposed standard. The delegations stressed the importance of taking into consideration natural and geographical variations in establishing a Codex standard and proposed to wait for the outcome of global data survey conducted by the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC). This position was supported by other countries which had similar issues with respect to their domestically produced products and also by countries which emphasized the importance that Codex standards should include variations representing international trades or wide range of production situations.

82. On the other hand, there were many countries that requested adoption of the revision as proposed by the Committee on Fats and Oils, since it fitted within the objective of ensuring fair practices in the food trade. These delegations stated that the proposed revision, especially the level of linolenic acid, was a result of lengthy and difficult negotiations in the Committee and therefore should not be altered. It was also pointed out that the level of linolenic acid should be strictly managed since it can be an indicator for the quality and nature of the oils. Other countries stressed the need for the survey to be undertaken by the IOOC to take into account regional conditions, production and processing methods, and to be statistically sound.

83. Finally as a compromise, the Commission agreed to adopt the Proposed Revision at Step 8 without any figure in the column of C18:3(linolenic acid) in Section 3.9 with footnote “Pending the results of IOOC survey and further consideration by the Committee on Fats and Oils, national limits may remain in place”. The Commission also agreed that the secretariat would work with the Chair of the Committee and the IOOC to develop a Circular Letter advising members of the importance of submitting data for the survey. The Commission noted that the Section on Methods and Analysis would be included in the standard only after its endorsement by the Committee for Methods of Analysis and Sampling.

84. The Commission noted the request from the Delegation of Iran to make clear specification of the “solvents” and clear descriptions as to “physical treatment” in the standard.

Proposed Draft Amendment of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils^[32]

85. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Amendment of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils at Steps 5 and 8 without amendment.

Fruit and Vegetable Juices

Proposed Draft Codex General Standard for Fruit Juices and Nectars^[33]

86. The Delegation of Brazil introduced the document as Host Government of the Task Force. The Delegation expressed its support to the adoption of the proposed draft Standard at Steps 5 and 8 while indicating that some minor adjustments were needed to improve the clarity and coherence of the text in particular sections 3.1.2(d), 4.8 and 5 as contained in CAC/26 LIM.3.

87. The Delegation of Spain, supported by a number of delegations, indicated that in Section 7.1.2.7 it would be more appropriate to refer to “sugars or syrups, including honey and/or sugars derived from fruits as listed in Sections 3.1.2 (a) and (b)” and to delete the reference to “authorized carbohydrate sweeteners”. The Delegation also noted that the column on minimum Brix levels could be better listed by botanical name (genus/specie) as opposed to common name of the fruit for easy of reference. The Delegation of New Zealand requested the inclusion of sodium and potassium caseinates in the list of processing aids.

88. The Commission noted that those sections of the Standard subject to endorsement (food additives/processing aids, food labelling and methods of analysis and sampling) were still to be endorsed by the relevant Codex committees. Some delegations pointed out that the endorsement process should take account of the decisions agreed upon by the Task Force as amendments to these sections might generate additional discussions on matters already compromised. The Commission also noted that the endorsement process allowed the relevant Committees to introduce amendments if appropriate and that this exercise was done in consultation with the concerned commodity committee/task force when necessary. In this regard, the Commission agreed to forward the proposed amendment to Section 7.1.2.7 to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling for its consideration.

89. In view of the above discussion, the Commission decided to adopt the main text of the proposed draft Codex General Standard for Fruit Juices and Nectars at Step 5 and advance it to Step 7 for further consideration by the Task Force without the need for obtaining further comments. The Commission noted that there was no objection to the amendments noted in paragraphs 83 and 84 and amended the text accordingly. However, the Commission agreed that further comments were necessary for the development of the Brix levels for six important fruit juices, as specified in Appendix III of ALINORM 03/39A, and agreed that these should be advanced only to Step 6. The Commission noted the important progress and decisions made on the major sections of the Standard and noted that the Task Force would have the opportunity to finalize the text at its next session so that a single Standard could be presented for final adoption by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

Methods of Analysis and Sampling^[34]

Harmonized IUPAC Guidelines for Single-Laboratory Validation.

90. The Commission endorsed the position of the Committee and agreed that the preferred approach should always be collaborative studies and only where it was not possible suggested to use single-laboratory validation.

91. The Commission adopted the IUPAC Guidelines by reference for the purpose of Codex. The Commission noted that they became Codex Guidelines and would be included in the Codex Alimentarius as they provided guidance to governments.

General Methods of Analysis for the Detection of Irradiated Foods

92. The Commission adopted the methods as proposed by the Committee.

General Methods for Additives and Contaminants

93. The Commission adopted the methods as endorsed by the Committee.

Milk and Milk Products

Draft Revised Standard for Cream and Prepared Creams^[35]

94. The Commission agreed that the term “physical separation” in the description of Cream (Section 2.1) was meant to distinguish from solvent/chemical extraction and it encompassed both mechanical and natural (gravity/sedimentation) separation methods and decided to add this interpretation as a footnote to the Standard.

95. With this interpretation and some minor editorial changes, the Commission adopted the draft revised Standard for Cream and Cream Products at Step 8, as proposed by the Committee on Milk and Milk Products.

Draft Revised Standard for Fermented Milks^[36]

96. The Commission noted that the labelling provisions for heat treated fermented milks specifically differentiated these products from yoghurt and other fermented milk products with living microorganisms. It further noted that the 31^st Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling after a long discussion had endorsed the labelling provisions of the standard without any amendments. The Commission recognized that the labelling provisions allowed for certain flexibility in permitting the use of national legislation. In this regard, it noted that although there was a remote possibility that a country under its national legislation could allow the sale and distribution in its territory of a product called “heat treated yoghurt”, this standard would not allow such a product to enter into the international trade unless similarly allowed by the national legislation of the importing country.

97. In view of the above, the Commission adopted the revised draft Standard for Fermented Milks at Step 8, as proposed by the Committee on Milk and Milk Products with some minor editorial changes, while noting the following:

a) The Delegation of Tunisia expressed its reservation as it felt that fermented milk products should be clearly differentiated from heat treated fermented milk products. It also noted the importance of identifying the animal origin of the gelatin used in these products.

b) The Delegation of Spain expressed its reservation with regard to Section 7.1.2 of the Standard, as it was of the opinion that in addition to the generic name (heat treated fermented milks) it would be necessary to include the names: yoghurt, kefir, kumis, when there was no legislation in the country of destination and when these names are accepted in the country of origin, in order to inform the consumer better.

c) The Delegation of Greece expressed its reservation with regard to the draft revised Standard for Fermented Milks, in order to protect the health of consumer and assure fair practice in food trade. The Delegation stated that i) in the Standard there was not a clear definition of “Yoghurt”; ii) only products which have viable, active and abundant microorganisms (Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus) could be named as Yoghurt. Heat treated fermented products can be named otherwise (e.g. heat treated fermented milks); iii) the raw material used for the production of Yoghurt, must only be with milk according to its official definition, other products obtained from milk, could not be used as raw materials for the production of yoghurt.

98. In addition, the Commission recommended that the Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products consider new work on Fermented Milk Drinks (see also para. 141).

Draft Revised Standard for Whey Powders^[37]

99. The Commission noted that the 34^th Session of the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants had not endorsed the provision of benzoyl peroxide as its proposed use in the standard was scheduled for JECFA evaluation in 2004. In recognizing the historical importance of the use of this substance in whey powders, the Commission agreed to include the following footnote in Section 4 - Food Additives.

“Benzoyl peroxide will be included in the standard subject to satisfactory evaluation by JECFA in 2004.”

100. The Commission adopted the draft revised standard for Whey Powders at Step 8 as proposed by the Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products with the above footnote and a few editorial changes, especially in the Spanish version.

Proposed Draft Amendment to the Codex General Standard for Cheese: Appendix^[38]

101. Recognizing that the presence of wheat gluten and wheat protein products in cheese coatings can adversely affect the health of celiac patients, the Commission agreed to add a reference to the Codex Standard for Wheat Protein Products including Wheat Gluten in relation to the ingredients of cheese coatings. For this purpose the Commission added the following footnote to the first bullet point of Section “Cheese coating”.

“Wheat gluten or wheat protein products should not be used for technological reasons e.g. coating or processing aids for foods which are gluten-free by nature - Codex Standard for Wheat Protein Products including Wheat Gluten (CODEX STAN 163-1987, Rev. 1-2001).”

102. The Commission adopted the proposed draft Amendment to the Codex General Standard for Cheese: Appendix at Steps 5 and 8, with the omission of Step 6 and 7, with the above addition.

Meat and Poultry Hygiene

Draft General Principles of Meat Hygiene^[39]

103. The Commission adopted the Draft General Principles at Step 8.

Processed Fruits and Vegetables

Draft Codex Standard for Bamboo Shoots^[40]

104. The Commission adopted the draft Codex Standard for Bamboo Shoots at Step 8 with two amendments in Section 9 - Methods of Analysis and Sampling namely:

a) The level of drained and net weight was changed to “50%” for consistency with provisions in Section 8.1.2 and,

b) The pH level was referred to Section 2.1(b) listing the different types of bamboo shoots and their respective pH value(s).

Draft Codex Standard for Canned Stone Fruits^[41]

105. The Commission adopted the draft Codex Standard for Canned Stone Fruits at Step 8.

Draft Codex Guidelines for Packing Media for Canned Fruits^[42]

106. The Commission adopted the draft Codex Guidelines for Packing Media for Canned Fruits at Step 8 as proposed by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits with an amendment in the Spanish version of the text to refer to “Líquidos de Cobertura” instead of “Medios de Cobertura”.

Draft Codex Standard for Aqueous Coconut Products - Coconut Milk and Coconut Cream^[43]

107. The Commission adopted the draft Codex Standard for Aqueous Coconut Products - Coconut Milk and Coconut Cream.

Pesticide Residues

Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides (MRLs)^[44]

108. The Commission noted the proposal by the Delegation of France and returned to Step 6 the draft MRLs for amitrole (079) and carbendazim (072) in order to clarify problems with method of determination and draft MRLs for piperonyl butoxide (062) in order to clarify the nature of its use and adopted all other draft MRLs at Step 8 and Steps 5/8 as proposed.

Draft Extraneous Maximum Residue Limits (DDT in Poultry Meat)^[45]

109. The Commission adopted the draft Extraneous Maximum Residue Limit for DDT in poultry meat at Step 8.

Draft Guidelines on Good Laboratory Practice in Pesticide Residue Analysis^[46]

110. The Commission adopted the draft Guidelines at Step 8.

Recommended Methods of Analysis for Pesticide Residues: Proposed Draft Amendments to the Introduction Section^[47]

111. The Commission adopted the proposed draft amendments at Steps 5 and 8.

Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods

Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Veterinary Drugs^{[48], [49]}

112. The Commission returned the draft temporary MRLs for phoxim in cattle tissues and cow’s milk to Step 6 pending JECFA re-evaluation, as recommended by 14^th Sessions of the Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods.

113. The Commission adopted all the other draft MRLs at Step 8, with the following changes recommended by the 14^th Session of the Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods:

a) Full MRL for oxytetracycline in fish tissues;

b) Full MRLs for phoxim in pig, sheep and goat tissues.

114. The Commission noted the reservation made by the Delegation of Italy, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union, regarding the MRLs for tetracycline(s), cyfluthrin and porcine somatotropin.

Draft Amendments to the Glossary of Terms and Definitions^[50]

115. The Commission adopted the draft amendments to the Glossary of Terms and Definitions at Step 5 of the Accelerated Procedure.

Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Veterinary Drugs^{[51], [52]}

116. Following the recommendations of the 13^th and 14^th Sessions of the Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods, the Commission:

a) Withdrew the proposed temporary MRLs for lincomycin in cattle and sheep tissues;

b) Advanced the proposed draft temporary MRLs for cyhalothrin only to Step 6, pending further re-consideration by JECFA.

c) Commission adopted the other proposed draft MRLs at Steps 5 and 8^[53].

117. The Commission noted the reservation made by Delegation of Italy, speaking on behalf of Member countries of the European Union, regarding the MRL for ivermectin in cow’s milk.