Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


PART XV

CONSIDERATION OF STANDARDS AT STEP 8 OF THE PROCEDURE FOR THE ELABORATION OF CODEX STANDARDS

Margarine

161. The Commission had before it for consideration the Proposed Provisional Standard for Margarine at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Standards. The Commission examined the standard section by section. In view of the divergence of opinion among Members of the Commission regarding a number of basic provisions of the standard, the Commission decided not to advance the standard beyond Step 8, to instruct the Secretariat to redraft the standard in the Codex Format, to send the redrafted text to governments for comments, and to submit the text and the comments to the Executive Committee which would decide whether to refer the standard back to the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils or to recommend that the Commission re-examine it at Step 8 at its next session. The delegation of the Netherlands, supported by other delegations, was of the opinion that the different opposing statements made were not new, that the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils had actually made allowance for them, and for that reason the standard should not be held up.

162. The principal aspects of the standard which were discussed by the Commission were: the use of milk or milk products in margarine; the application of the standard; minimum percentage fat content and possible introduction of a specific limitation on moisture content; the provisions concerning vitamins and food additives and the provisions of the labelling section, in particular those relating to the application of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods to margarine and claims which might be made for the presence of milk fat or butter in margarine.

163. The question of the use of milk or milk products in margarine and the presence of milk fat in the product gave rise to considerable discussion on the wording of the definition, the sub-section on raw materials and claims for the presence of milk fat or butter on labels for margarine. The delegations of Australia, Denmark, France, Ireland, New Zealand and Poland expressed the view that their countries could not accept any standard which permitted the presence of milk fat in margarine other than very small or trace amounts which would arise from the use of skimmed milk in the aqueous phase of manufacture of the product.

164. Regarding the application of the standard, the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany reiterated its objections to the inclusion of this section in the standard for the reason given in paragraph 31(a) of the Report (ALINORM 68/11). The delegation of the U.S.A. also considered that this section should be deleted from the standard. The delegation of Ghana reserved its position on the definition as it would wish to consider whether it should prohibit the import of a similar product containing less that 80% fat. The delegation of Switzerland indicated that it could not accept the figure of 80% as did also the delegation of France which expressed the view that the figure should be raised to 82%. Some delegations considered that it would be desirable to introduce into the standard a maximum moisture content limitation of 16% in the standard. Other delegations were not in favour of the introduction of a maximum moisture content into the standard as this would present certain difficulties in respect of the amount of salt or ingredients which could be added to the product, and in their opinion it was of greater importance from the point of view of the consumer to ensure an adequate minimum percentage fat content.

165. Concerning the permissive provisions relating to the vitaminization of margarine, the delegations of Portugal and the Federal Republic of Germany drew the Commission's attention to possible dangers regarding the excessive use of vitamin D. The delegation of Portugal also drew attention to the preserving agents in the standard and stated that there was a need to indicate the processes to be allowed for the treatment of the fats used in margarine. The Commission was informed of the recommendations of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Nutrition and the opinion of the Executive Committee of the Commission that it would not be possible to prescribe international standards for the vitaminization of foods because of variations in the vitamin requirements of different countries, and even different sections of population within a single country.

166. The Commission was informed of those additives mentioned in the standard which had been either endorsed or temporarily endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives. Many delegations stated that their national regulations contained different provisions concerning food additives which were permitted in margarine. The delegations of the U.S.A. and of Trinidad and Tobago emphasized that the different climatic conditions of countries resulted in different technological requirements for the use of food additives in margarine. The delegation of the U.S.A. drew the Commission's attention to the need to make provision in the standard to accommodate the differing technological requirements of Members of the Commission particularly in view of the fact that Codex standards would only permit the use of those food additives which had been cleared from the point of view of their safety by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee and Codex Committee on Food Additives. Members of the Commission were requested to bear in mind the differing technological requirements of countries and also to consider seriously the need to accept the recommendations of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and the Codex Committee on Food Additives regarding safety of food additives if progress towards international agreement on food additives were to be achieved.

167. Regarding the section of the standard on labelling, the delegation of the Netherlands considered that the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods could not be satisfactorily applied at this stage because the standard had not yet been adopted by the Commission. In view of the Commission's earlier decision concerning the labelling section of the Format of Codex Standards, the Secretariat was requested, in addition to the specific provisions already contained in the Standard for Margarine, to make specific reference to those provisions of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods which should apply to margarine when putting the standard into the Codex Format. The delegation of New Zealand proposed that section 6.3 as contained in paragraph 78 of the Report of the Fourth Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission should be reinstated in the labelling section of the Standard for Margarine. Paragraph 6.3 reads as follows:

“6.3 Margarine shall not be described or designated on any label or any labelling by words or pictorial device or be presented in such a manner as to refer to or be suggestive of milk, butter, other milk products or other dairy term, if likely to lead the purchaser or consumer to suppose that the product is butter or any other milk product, or any other product of which milk or any milk product forms an essential part.”

In support of this proposal, the delegation of New Zealand drew the Commission's attention to the fact that the similar provision contained in the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods would have no application to the Standard for Margarine until such time as the General Standard had been accepted by countries which also accepted the Standard for Margarine. In the opinion of the delegation of New Zealand, this matter was of major importance if the possibility of consumers being misled as to the true nature of margarine was to be prevented. The Commission decided by 17 to 11 with 4 abstentions not to reinstate paragraph 6.3 in the standard. The Commission decided by 19 to 12 with no abstentions to retain paragraph 7.3 in the standard. It was agreed on a proposal of the delegation of the U.S.A. by 21 to 5 with 4 abstentions to amend paragraph 7.3 to read as follows:

“Except as provided in 7.5 no reference shall be made to the presence of milk fat or butter in margarine.”

Honey

168. The Coordinator for Europe, Dr. R. Wildner (Austria), informed the Commission of the work of the Coordinating Committee for Europe on the Standard for Honey. The Commission at its Fourth Session had agreed that the Coordinating Committee for Europe should continue its work on the Honey Standard on a regional basis at that time. The Commission had asked the Coordinating Committee for Europe to recommend whether the Standard for Honey should be developed on a regional or world-wide basis. The Commission was informed that the Coordinating Committee for Europe at its Fifth Session had completed its consideration of the Draft Provisional Standard for Honey and had recommended that the standard should be submitted at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Regional Standards, together with the decisions on methods of analysis for honey of the Third Session of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling. The Commission was also informed that the Coordinating Committee for Europe had taken into account views of interested non-European countries with the result that difference between the European and non-European countries regarding the provisions of the Honey Standard had been considerably narrowed. The Coordinating Committee for Europe considered that the standard as amended could possibly serve as a world-wide standard.

169. The Commission considered as a general issue the question of whether a Standard for Honey should be elaborated on a regional or world-wide basis. It was also suggested that regional standards might also be developed for only those types of honey in which interest was confined to a specific region. In support of the view that a Standard for Honey should be elaborated on a world-wide basis, the delegation of the U.S.A. quoted international production and trade figures for honey. These showed that the largest producers and exporters were in general non-European countries. The largest importers were in general the countries of Western Europe. These countries accounted for 80% of world imports.

170. The main provisions of the standard which appeared to give most difficulty for the non-European producers of honey were the diastase activity and the HMF content. The delegation of Argentina indicated that it would be satisfied with the standard as presently drafted except for very minor points of detail. The delegation of Australia stated that HMF content and diastase activity would create serious problems for certain Australian honeys being exported at the present time. The delegations of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.S.A. were of the opinion that if some derogation could be made regarding diastase activity, reducing sugar content and some other criteria, then the other provisions of the standard would in general be acceptable to them. The delegation of Canada enquired whether granulated honey would be covered by the terms of the description of the honey relating to consistency. The delegation of Hungary enquired whether an acacia honey could be included in section 4.1.3 of ALINORM 68/19 with an apparent sucrose content of 6% maximum. The delegation of Austria pointed out that the present description of honey would cover granulated honey and also it was quite possible that acacia honey would not encounter any difficulty in conforming with the standard as differences in the methods of analysis used might be the explanation as to the figures quoted by the delegation of Hungary. The delegation of Japan indicated that it would not be able to accept the present Standard for Honey as a world-wide standard.

171. The Commission decided by 16 to 13 with 4 abstentions to accept the recommendation of the Coordinating Committee for Europe that the Honey Standard should be a regional standard for Europe. The Austrian delegation was of the opinion that the standard should go to Step 9 as a regional standard for Europe. The Commission decided that the standard should not be advanced beyond Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Regional Standards and the Secretariat should redraft the standard in the approved Codex Format. The standard should then be sent to governments for comments on the main issues outlined above in the report of the Commission's discussions. The standard together with the comments should be placed before the next session of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee, in the light of the comments received, would examine whether the standard needed to be referred to the Sixth Session of the Coordinating Committee for Europe to be held in November 1968 if any amendment were necessary. The Commission would then re-examine the standard at its next session.

172. Regarding the methods of analysis for honey, the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling had endorsed the methods of analysis contained in the standard and recommended that Steps 6, 7 and 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards be omitted. The Committee was further of the opinion that the methods of analysis were generally applicable and were uncontroversial within the framework of the European standard. The Secretariat was requested to make certain editorial corrections to the methods of analysis, paying particular attention to the French and Spanish texts, before the standard was sent out to governments for comment, and to replace the reference in the section on labelling to the General Standard on Labelling by specific provisions on the lines laid down in paragraph 36 above in view of the fact that the General Standard had not yet been adopted by the Commission. The delegation of the U.S.A. stated that it had several unresolved questions concerning the method of analysis for honey.

Processed Fruits and Vegetables

173. The Commission considered Draft Provisional Standards for Canned Tomatoes, Canned Green Beans and Canned Wax Beans, Canned Peaches, Canned Applesauce, Canned Grapefruit and Canned Sweet Corn at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards. The Commission adopted certain amendments to the standards as indicated hereunder and agreed that the standards as amended should be advanced in the Codex Format to Step 9 of the Procedure. The following amendments to the standards under consideration were adopted by the Commission:

  1. In all the standards the provision “processed by heat before or after being sealed in a container, so as to prevent spoilage” should read “processed by heat in an appropriate manner before or after being sealed in a container, so as to prevent spoilage”. The words “in an appropriate manner” have been added to restrict processing by heat before sealing in containers to asceptic canning techniques.

  2. In the Standards for Canned Green and Canned Wax Beans, and Canned Sweet Corn, modified starch should be deleted from the list of additives because it had not been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives.

  3. In the Standard for Canned Tomatoes under definition 1.1.(a) insert the words “the fruit of” between the words “characteristic of” and “Lycopersicum esculentum P. Miller” and add “(cultivars)” after “varieties”.

  4. In the Standard for Canned Green Beans and Canned Wax Beans, sub-sections (b) and (c) under 2.2 - Additives, should be deleted.

  5. In the Standard for Canned Applesauce, sub-section (c) “Colouring Matter” under 2.2 - Additives, should be deleted because it had not been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives.

174. The Commission agreed that the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables should examine a proposal from the delegation of Austria which requested that the Standard for Peaches include under 1.3.2 “Colour Type” a fourth colour type, namely “Green”, although green in colour these peaches were ripe peaches.

175. In the Standard for Canned Grapefruit, the Commission agreed that where appropriate the addition of lemon juice should be declared on the label. The Commission noted that this was in harmony with its decision regarding the way in which labelling provisions should be dealt with under the new Codex Format.

176. The Commission agreed that the Secretariat should examine the standards before issue to governments for acceptance to ensure that weights ane measures were expressed in S.I. Units, that there were no errors in translation, and that necessary changes in headings and sequence be made to conform with the approved Codex Format.

Sugars

177. The Commission examined the Draft Provisional Standards for Glucose Syrup, Dried Glucose Syrup, Dextrose, Dextrose Monohydrate, Dextrose Anhydrous and Lactose, and decided to advance them to Step 9 for acceptance by governments with the following amendments.

178. In the case of Glucose Syrup, the Commission agreed to insert a footnote in the standard indicating that the maximum limit for lead of 1 mg/kg had been temporarily endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives pending assessment of the total food load. With respect to the section under labelling, the Commission requested the Secretariat to replace the reference to the General Standard on Food Labelling by specific provisions in view of the fact that the General Standard had not yet been adopted by the Commission. However, reference to the paragraphs of the General Standard would be permitted.

179. The delegation of Japan indicated that the Standards for Dextrose Monohydrate and Dextrose Anhydrous might not be fully accepted since in this country these products were purified using ion-exchange resins yielding products containing 98.5% dextrose with a maximum sulphated ash content of 0.05%, and that in the case of dried glucose syrup products containing 15% dextrose equivalent with a maximum of sulphated ash content of 0.1% were widely consumed in Japan. The delegation of Yugoslavia considered that the dextrose equivalents in Glucose Syrup and Dried Glucose Syrup were too low. The delegation of Denmark expressed concern about the level of 400 mg/kg sulphur dioxide in Glucose Syrup for manufacture of sugar confectionery since this might lead to high levels of intake of this additive. It was pointed out that this level of sulphur dioxide was permitted only in Glucose Syrup used in the manufacture of sugar confectionery and that the actual residues of the additive would be low in the final product. Furthermore, the levels of sulphur dioxide in the individual foods such as sugar confectionery products and soft drinks would be controlled by specific permitted levels of use. The delegation of France expressed some concern about the tolerances of heavy metal contaminants in these products.

Food Hygiene

180. The Commission had before it a Code of Practice dealing with the General Principles of Food Hygiene, and a Code of Hygienic Practice prepared in conjunction with the General Principles and covering Canned Fruit and Vegetable Products. These two documents had been adopted by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene at its Fourth Session in a final form with the recommendation that they be placed before the Commission at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Standards. It was stressed that these codes of practice were advisory in nature and it would be up to individual governments to decide what use they would wish to make of these codes of practice. The Commission noted that the General Principles covered a large field and that in some respects it would be difficult to apply these provisions in their entirety. These codes of practice could also fulfill a useful function as checklists of requirements for national enforcement authorities. The attention of the Commission was drawn to the “end-product specification section” of the General Principles and of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Canned Fruit and Vegetable Products. Such end-product specifications when developed could be included in Codex standards for individual commodities and could then become mandatory.

181. With regard to section II of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Canned Fruit and Vegetable Products, it was pointed out that laminated plastics were permeable to gases and that therefore it would be more appropriate to define “hermetically sealed” as being “tight against microbial contamination”.

182. In the opinion of the Federal Republic of Germany, there appeared to be no need for a specific Code of Hygienic Practice for Canned Fruit and Vegetable Products since most of its provisions were covered in the General Principles of Food Hygiene and that specific requirements could be incorporated into the hygiene section of the commodity standard concerned.

183. The Commission adopted the General Principles of Food Hygiene and the Code of Hygienic Practice for Canned Fruit and Vegetable Products at Step 8 of the Procedure. The Secretariat would arrange for the publication of these codes of practice and send them to all Member Governments of FAO and WHO.


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page