217. The Commission had before it the above draft standard contained in Appendix II of the Report of the Ninth Session of the Coordinating Committee for Europe (ALINORM 72/19A) and a proposed Annex to that standard setting out specifications and criteria for the application of the definition of the standard (Appendix III to ALINORM 72/19A). In addition, the Commission had before it the Report of the Eighth Session of the Coordinating Committee for Europe (ALINORM 72/19), the Report of the Fourth Session of the Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters (ALINORM 72/19B), the Report of the Second WHO Consultation regarding the draft European Regional Standard for Natural Mineral Waters (CX/MIN 72/2), a note by the Joint Secretariat (ALINORM 72/34) and a document prepared by the delegation of Switzerland dealing with information required for the identification of a water as a natural mineral water, as well as methods of analysis for the constituents of such waters (Conference Room Document LIM 1).
218. The Coordinator for Europe, in introducing the Reports of the Coordinating Committee for Europe, pointed out that the Draft Standard for Natural Mineral Waters had been discussed at length and that the questions raised at the Seventh Session of the Commission (ALINORM 70/43) had been given careful consideration. The delegate of Switzerland, speaking on behalf of Prof. O. Högl, Chairman of the Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters, drew the Commission's attention to the changes proposed by that Committee in the draft standard, and to the fact that these changes had been taken into consideration by the Coordinating Committee for Europe. In his opinion, the changes affecting the definition and labelling sections of the standard were significant and went a long way towards meeting the objections of WHO as regards the reference, in the definition and the labelling section, to “properties favourable to health”. This view was supported by several delegates while other delegates expressed doubts as to whether the Commission should endorse such references by adopting the standard in the form submitted to it. The representative of WHO drew the Commission's attention to the fact that the standard now referred to mineral waters when used only as table water or as a beverage. In addition, he reported that his Organization, in compliance with the decision of the Commission, had obtained the opinion of medical experts concerning the claim that such waters have “properties favourable to health”. These experts after considering a number of reports which they thought to be appropriate could find no scientific basis for such claims. The representative of WHO concluded by informing the Commission that, in the view of his Organization, the standard as drafted still posed some fundamental problems which should be resolved, as far as possible, before the standard was finalized. Furthermore, the WHO Legal Adviser informed the Commission that such medical claims would pose a policy issue for his Organization.
219. A number of delegates were of the opinion that several questions needed further consideration in the light of the findings and recommentations of the Second WHO Consultation regarding the draft European Regional Standard for Natural Mineral Waters as summarized in ALINORM 72/34, in which the experts had unanimously agreed to the conclusions given in Appendix VI to this Report. As regards the optional labelling provisions, in particular those pertaining to “properties favourable to health”, it was noted that the draft standard required that such claims be in conformity with the legislation of the country in which the product was sold. Some delegates considered that this provision would make it possible to overcome the difficulties arising from the divergent attitudes concerning claims pertaining to health. Other delegates, however, pointed out that the inclusion of this provision in the standard might induce manufacturers to state or imply on the label that the claim of properties favourable to health had been endorsed by WHO, particularly on account of the fact that such properties were also mentioned in the definition section of the standard. The representative of the International Organization of Consumers Unions (IOCU) strongly recommended the prohibition of health claims on the label of food and drinks. In this connection, some delegates of the European Region were of the opinion that ‘properties favourable to health’ did not imply medicinal claims, since such properties had to be taken in the context of the Scope section which excluded waters offered for sale for medicinal purposes. The Commission's attention was drawn to the recommendations in the Report of the Second WHO Consultation (CX/MIN 72/2-Part V) concerning hygienic criteria, label declaration and medical claims.
220. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling pointed out that some aspects of the section on labelling still required endorsement. The Commission also noted that methods of analysis for natural mineral waters were also pending endorsement by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling, and that the question of the Appendix III to the standard (ALINORM 72/19A) adopted by the Ninth Session of the Coordinating Committee was subject to comments by governments. The Commission further noted the written proposals from the delegate of France supported by some other delegates which had already been discussed by the Coordinating Committee for Europe at its last session, to amend the second paragraph of the Definition section as follows: “These characteristics, which may confer properties favourable to health, shall have been determined on the basis of examination according to approved scientific methods, with regard to: ……”and to amend the third paragraph of the section on Definition by adding the following sentence: “These examinations may, however, be required by the competent authority in the country of origin”.
Status of the Draft European Regional Standard for Natural Mineral Waters
221. The Commission considered that a number of questions still remained to be resolved including the amendments proposed by France. The Commission decided, therefore, to hold the standard at Step 8. In addition, the Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters or a group of experts appointed by the Committee should consider the proposed appendix to the standard in the light of government comments, and should consider the question of methods of analysis in the light of the Conference Room Document (LIM. 1) prepared by Switzerland. The sections on labelling and methods of analysis should then be submitted to the Codex Committees on Labelling and Methods of Analysis for consideration and endorsement. Finally, the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters would keep in touch with WHO, in order to arrive at an agreement on the subject of optional claims relating to properties favourable to health.
222. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Switzerland.
223. The Commission, at its Seventh Session, requested the Coordinating Committee for Europe to consider and advise whether or not it would be desirable to undertake the elaboration of a European Regional Standard for Edible Ices (paragraph 210 of ALINORM 70/43). The Coordinating Committee for Europe considered this matter at its Eighth Session and recommended that a standard or standards for edible ices should be elaborated on a European regional basis and that the responsibility for a regional Codex Committee should be entrusted to Sweden (see paragraph 9, ALINORM 72/19). On the recommendation of the Eighteenth Session of the Executive Committee, the Secretariat obtained up-to-date information on the international trade in edible ices to assist the Commission in its deliberations. The Commission noted with appreciation that the Government of Sweden had indicated its willingness to assume the responsibility for hosting either a European regional or world-wide Codex Committee on Edible Ices. The delegate of Sweden indicated, however, that his preference would be for a world-wide standard.
224. The Commission had before it a document prepared by the Secretariat on the international trade in edible ices (ALINORM 72/3 and Add. 1). It agreed that, on the basis of the information on international trade in this commodity, it was desirable to elaborate standards for various types of edible ices.
225. Opinion was divided on the question of whether such standards should be elaborated on a European regional or a world-wide basis. A number of delegates were of the opinion that, while the available statistical data concerning international trade in edible ices indicated that trade within the region of Europe appeared to be greater than trade on a world-wide basis, world-wide trade in this commodity was increasing and would in all probability, continue to increase. These delegations pointed out that about 10–20% of edible ices produced in Europe were exported to countries outside that region. Furthermore, consideration would have to be given to other aspects as laid down in the Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex Alimentarius Procedural Manual, 2nd edition). These included consumer protection from the point of view of health and fraudulent practices, volume of consumption in individual countries and volume of production, among others. It was further pointed out that should a regional Codex Committee be established, countries which were not members of the region could participate in the work of the Committee, as observers only. Although it was recognized that according to the procedures of the Commission, standards elaborated on a regional basis could subsequently be adopted as world-wide standards, it did not seem profitable to commence with the elaboration of regional standards, as the ultimate aim was the elaboration of world-wide standards. In this connection, the regional standard for honey was quoted as an example.
226. Other delegates were strongly in favour of the elaboration of regional standards for edible ices. In the view of these delegates, trade figures clearly indicated that edible ices were a commodity of particular interest to the region of Europe. Furthermore a number of traditional ices existed in Europe which called for the establishment of regional standards. It was also pointed out that the Commission, at its Seventh session, had agreed that there was no need to elaborate a standard on a world-wide basis and that the Coordinating Committee for Europe, at its Eighth Session, had also made a similar recommendation. In addition, the standardization of edible ices was a complex matter requiring the elaboration of several standards, some of which might cover products typical only of the region of Europe.
227. It was pointed out that it would be necessary to consider in addition to ices based on milk fat, and non-milk fat, also ice mixes and powders for domestic and industrial uses, it being understood that it would be necessary to draw on the expertise of the Committee of Government Experts on Milk and Milk Products in the elaboration of ices based on milk fat.
228. In reply to a question by the delegate of Spain, the delegate of Sweden stated that he could not indicate at present whether or not the government of Sweden would be in a position to provide interpretation and translation facilities in the Spanish language.
Establishment of World-wide Codex Committee on Edible Ices
229. The Commission decided to set up a world-wide Codex Committee on Edible Ices under Rule IX.1 (b)(i) of the Commission under the chairmanship of the Government of Sweden. The following terms of reference were agreed upon for that Committee:
“To elaborate world-wide standards as appropriate for all types of edible ices, including mixes and powders used for their manufacture.”
230. The Commission stressed the need for maintaining liaison with the Joint FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products, in order to avoid any duplication of work of both bodies. In addition to its task of developing world-wide standards, the Codex Committee on Edible Ices was requested to consider at its first session the question of the need to establish one or more regional standards for edible ices and to report back to the Commission in due course. The Commission expressed its gratitude to the Government of Sweden for its willingness to assume responsibility for hosting this Committee.
231. The Commission was informed that the Ninth Session of the Coordinating Committee for Europe had considered the proposal of the Coordinator for Europe that regional standards be developed for salt, vinegar and eggs (paragraph 25, ALINORM 72/19A). The Coordinating Committee for Europe had requested the Commission to consider this matter.
232. The Commission considered whether a standard or standards should be elaborated for this commodity and whether it would be appropriate to elaborate them on a European Regional or World-wide basis. The Commission noted that the Committee on Food Additives, at its Eighth Session, had agreed that specifications of identity and purity should be elaborated for food grade salt and had adopted a draft specification contained in Appendix VI to ALINORM 72/12. It was agreed that before submitting these specifications to governments for comment, the views of the Commission should be sought on this matter.
233. It was pointed out to the Commission that there were several commodities in international trade such as table salt intended for direct consumption and food grade salt which was used mainly by the food industry which would require the establishment of a standard. There were other products such as curing salts which might have to be considered in this context. Several delegates made statements on the many and various food uses of salt according to country and region. Opinion differed on the issue of whether a standard or standards be elaborated on a European regional or world-wide basis. The opinion was expressed that it would be appropriate to develop a European regional standard for table salt, but that food grade salt appeared to be more suitable to be the subject of a world-wide standard.
234. It was pointed out to the Commission that, in certain regions of the world, there was a need to iodize salt and that this matter should also be considered by the Commission. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses indicated that this question could be considered by that Committee. In this connection, the Commission noted that a number of Codex standards referred to the additon of food factors such as vitamins, iodine and other nutritional substances as being the responsibility of national authorities. The Commission considered that before reaching a decision on the issue of whether (a) a standard or standards be elaborated for this commodity; and (b) such standards be elaborated on a regional or world-wide basis, there was a need to prepare a working paper justifying the elaboration of Codex standards as set out in the Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex Alimentarius Commission Procedural Manual, 2nd Edition). The Secretariat was requested to prepare such a paper after having contacted the Comité européen de l'Etude du Sel (European Committee on Salt), for submission to the next session of the Commission. The Codex Committee on Food Additives was requested not to proceed with work on the specifications for food grade salt, pending further consideration of this matter by the Commission.
235. The Commission noted that the Coordinating Committee at its Eighth Session had agreed that it would be desirable to elaborate standards for various types of vinegar on a European basis, and that the standards contained in the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus would serve as a basis for this purpose (paragraph 26 of ALINORM 72/19A). The Commission considered that it was not in a position at present to reach a decision, in the absence of a justification paper based on the criteria for the establishment of its work priorities (Codex Alimentarius Commission, Procedural Manual, 2nd Edition) and requested the Secretariat to prepare a paper on this subject covering the various types of vinegar on the same lines as had been agreed upon for salt, for consideration by the Commission at its next session.
236. The Commission noted that the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe was working on the standardization of this commodity and also noted the work of the International Egg Commission in this respect. The Commission agreed that before this matter could be considered any further, the Secretariat should obtain information on the progress of the work carried out by the above organizations.
237. The Commission was informed that the Coordinating Committee for Europe at its Eighth Session had agreed to certain changes to the above method and had considered that these changes, endorsed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling, were of a non-substantive nature serving only to further clarify the method which had been already adopted. The Commission agreed that the changes proposed by the Coordinating Committee for Europe should be brought to the attention of governments so that they could be incorporated in the Regional Standard for Honey.
238. The Commission had before it the Report of an Ad Hoc Working Group of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (ALINORM 72/24). The Secretariat pointed out that the report had been considered in detail by the Sixth Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues. The Working Group, which had been convened to discuss basic issues in relation to the establishment of Codex tolerances for pesticide residues and had been hosted by the government of Denmark, had examined the concept of “good agricultural practice” in relation to the establishment of the Codex tolerances and had proposed definitions for “good agricultural practice in the use of pesticides” as well as for “Codex tolerances (Codex maximum residue limits)”. It had also examined the question of “high” versus “low” tolerance concepts in detail and had considered sampling procedures and interpretation of analytical data as a possible means of overcoming the difficulties posted by these two concepts. The Commission took note of the Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group and expressed its appreciation to the government of Denmark for hosting a session of that Group.
239. The Commission had before it an extract from the report of the Sixth Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (ALINORM 72/24A Extract) and noted that, in view of the close proximity between the session of that Committee and the Commission it had not been possible to prepare and distribute the full report. The Rapporteur, Drs. P.H. Berben, speaking on behalf of the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, Drs. A. Kruysse, gave an outline of particular difficulties the Committee was facing in recommending tolerances for pesticide residues. He pointed out that, although two Ad Hoc Working Groups had been convened to discuss fundamental questions, certain basic questions still had not been resolved. This was brought about by the fact that the elaboration of pesticide residue tolerances represented a problem quite distinct from the elaboration of other Codex standards, since pesticide residue tolerances had to take into account the differing pest control needs of various countries and regions in the world and the attitude of countries to the use of certain pesticides. As a result, Codex recommended tolerances, which were often higher than tolerances in certain countries, might not always be acceptable. The Rapporteur informed the Commission that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues had reached a critical stage in its work and had seriously considered, at its last session, discontinuing the recommendation of tolerances, and that it was necessary to examine the acceptance procedure of the Commission in the light of the difficulties which were particular to the establishment of tolerances for pesticide residues, to ensure a successful continuation of the work of the Committee. The delegate of Japan stated that because of lack of time to examine the Extract from the Report of the Sixth Session of the Committee, he had to reserve the position of Japan on the items contained in the document. The Commission considered the individual items contained in document ALINORM 72/24A Extract, and its decisions are given hereunder:
240. The Commission considered the definitions for “pesticide”, “pesticide residue”, “good agricultural practice in the use of pesticides” and “Codex tolerance (Codex maximum residue limit)” adopted by the Sixth Session of the above Committee. It noted that these definitions had been drawn up for the purposes of the Codex Alimentarius and that they had been discussed in great detail by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues and its Ad Hoc Working Group, which had met in Copenhagen (see paragraphs 1 and 2 of ALINORM 72/24A Extract). The Commission adopted these definitions (see Appendix VII to this Report). In reply to a query from the observer of the Libyan Arab Republic, who indicated that his country had not received a copy of the questionnaire on good agricultural practice in the use of pesticides, which had been distributed by the Canadian delegation attending the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, it was stated that the questionnaire had been sent only to Members of the Commission.
241. The Commission had before it a proposal by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues to amend the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards in respect of Codex tolerances for pesticide residues. The Commission noted that the amendment involved the omission of Step 2 of the Codex procedure, so that the Secretariat could submit the proposals of the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues directly to governments for comment, and the addition of a provision to paragraph 3 of the introduction of the Codex Procedure to the effect that the omission of one or more of Steps 6, 7 and 8 would be possible by a two-thirds majority of votes cast, wherever the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues had indicated the tolerances for which the omission of steps would apply. Such tolerances would be dealt with by the Commission in accordance with the Guide to the Consideration of Standards at Step 8 of the Codex Procedure. The Commission agreed with the view of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues that the new procedure would expedite work on the elaboration of Codex tolerances for pesticide residues, and adopted the amendments proposed by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, but decided to delete reference to “contaminants”, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and the Codex Committee on Food Additives. The adopted text of the amendment is as follows:
“Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides
Steps 1, 2 and 3
The Secretariat distributes the recommendations for maximum limits for pesticide residues, when available from the Joint FAO Working Party of Experts and the WHO Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues and requests comments from governments and interested international organizations.
Step 4
The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues examines the recommendations for maximum limits for residues in the light of comments. The Codex Committee, when formulating its recommendations for proposed draft Codex maximum limits, takes all appropriate matters into consideration including the need for urgency, the government comments at Step 3 and the likelihood of new evidence becoming available in the immediate future and, on the basis of such considerations, indicates to the Commission those proposed draft maximum limits which, in its view, need to be passed through the full Procedure and those for which there might be an omission of Steps 6, 7 and 8, it being understood that any maximum limit at Step 5, for which it has been recommended that Steps 6, 7 and 8 could be omitted or any maximum limit at Step 8 shall be dealt with by the Commission in accordance with the Guide to the Consideration of Standards at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards.
Steps 5–10
Unchanged”.
Introduction to the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Codes of Practice
Add the following at the end of paragraph 3 of the above-mentioned text:
“It shall further be open to the Commission to authorize, on the basis of a two thirds majority of the votes cast, the omission of one or more of Steps 6, 7 and 8 of the Procedure in Parts 1 and 2 of this document in respect of standards for pesticide residues elaborated by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, where such an omission is recommended by the Committee.”
242. The Commission considered a proposal by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues to apply the provisions of paragraph 4 B of the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius Commission instead of paragraph 5 B of the same General Principles to the acceptance procedure of Codex tolerances for pesticide residues. The purpose of the amendment was to enable a country which could not accept a recommended tolerance for pesticide residues in accordance with one of the provisions of paragraph 5 A of the acceptance of Codex General Standards, to indicate, nevertheless, that it would be prepared to allow the free distribution of food complying with Codex maximum residue limits within its territorial jurisdiction. The Commission noted that two countries had indicated that they were prepared to consider the free distribution of food complying with Codex tolerances for pesticide residues, even though certain tolerances could not be accepted under the present acceptance procedure, because the pesticides in question were not allowed to be used in those countries. (See paragraph 163 of the Report of the Seventh Session of the Commission, ALINORM 70/43). It was pointed out that further information of this nature concerning the manner in which governments would be in a position to accept Codex recommended tolerances was needed and should be obtained. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues had requested clarification of the Codex acceptance procedures in relation to Codex tolerances, and, particularly, whether or not in accepting Codex tolerances a country undertook to amend its legislation in such a way as to make it coincide with the Codex limit.
243. The Commission agreed that the Codex acceptance procedures should be discussed by the Codex Committee on General Principles in relation to tolerances for pesticide residues and requested the Secretariat to prepare a paper for the next session of that Committee in collaboration with the Netherlands Secretariat.
244. The Commission considered a summary included in the report of the Sixth session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues concerning various difficulties encountered in recommending tolerances for pesticide residues (see paragraph 5, ALINORM 72/24 A Extract). The Commission noted that the principle which had been followed by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues in basing recommended international tolerances for pesticide residues on a broad concept of “good agricultural practice” led to tolerances which were higher than would be acceptable by a number of countries. This was due to the fact that recommended international tolerances took into account the particular and varying pest control needs of individual countries or regions. For example, some countries allowed within their legal framework the use of particular pesticides at relatively higher levels to cope with seemingly exceptional circumstances characteristic of pest infestation patterns in their region. This resulted in the acceptance of higher tolerances in those countries. Some countries found it difficult to reconcile this concept of accepting higher tolerances required by the good agricultural practice of other countries with the principle of permitting no more than the minimum quantity required to control pests under the “normal” conditions prevailing in their countries. Furthermore, the Commission noted that those Codex tolerances which had been based on data derived from exceptional circumstances of pest infestation were not acceptable to some countries as, in their opinion, such data were not appropriate to the establishment of international tolerances for pesticide residues. The Commission was informed of further difficulties such as the choice of pesticide data in time relation with the point of enforcement of the tolerances, the meaning of Codex tolerances in the light of sampling and analysis and also considerations of the health of the consumer. The Commission agreed that the Joint FAO/WHO Food Additives and Contaminants Conference scheduled for 1973 should consider these questions. The Secretariat was requested to prepare with the Netherlands a working document for that Conference setting out the problems in detail. It was also agreed that the Executive Committee should, if necessary, examine such problems as it may deem appropriate in this respect.
245. The Commission noted that certain tolerances and practical residue limits for pesticide residues at Step 9 of the Codex procedure, which had been recommended on a temporary basis, were no longer regarded as being temporary by the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues. The Commission agreed with the view of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues that the Codex amendment procedure need not be applied to these changes and decided to adopt them and to inform governments accordingly (see paragraph 8, ALINORM 72/24 A Extract).
246. The Commission had before it a number of tolerances and practical residue limits at Step 8 of the Procedure, contained in paragraph 9 of ALINORM 72/24 A Extract. Some delegates were strongly in favour of adopting these recommendations in view of the fact that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues had selected the less controversial tolerances for submission at Step 8, and also in view of the need to expedite the work of the Commission on pesticide residue tolerances. Other delegates were not in favour of submitting these tolerances to governments at Step 9. Considering that the tolerances in question had not been brought to the attention of governments in sufficient time in advance of the Commission, it was decided to hold the proposed tolerances at Step 8 of the Procedure and to reconsider them at the next session in accordance with the Guide to the Consideration of Standards at Step 8. During the discussions on pesticide residue tolerances, the delegate of India inquired whether the tolerances recommended had taken into account the various nutritional levels and dietary patterns in different countries, and added that, if not, these matters might be considered for such purposes.
247. The Commission had before it tolerances for pesticide residues at Step 5 of the Procedure with a recommendation by the Committee that Steps 6, 7 and 8 be omitted (see paragraph 10 of ALINORM 72/24 A Extract). It also had before it tolerances and practical residue limits at Step 5 without such a recommendation (see paragraph 11 of ALINORM 72/24 A Extract). The Commission adopted the recommended tolerances and practical residue limits at Step 5 and decided that they should be submitted to governments for comment at Step 6 of the Procedure. As regards the proposal by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues to omit Steps 6, 7 and 8 with regard to certain pesticide residue tolerances, the Commission decided not to omit such Steps.
248. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the government of the Netherlands.
249. The Commission had before it the above draft Code which was contained in Appendix II to ALINORM 72/25. The Secretariat introduced this document and recalled the decision taken by the Joint Group of Experts to replace the draft General Standard for Quick Frozen Foods by a Code of Practice for Quick Frozen Foods (paragraph 42 and 43 of ALINORM 72/25). The Draft Code of Practice had been elaborated, examined and revised in the light of government comments by the Joint Group of Experts and was now submitted to the Commission for consideration at Step 5 of the Procedure. The Commission was also informed that an Appendix to the Draft Code of Practice containing methods of checking temperatures for quick-frozen foods was being elaborated by a small ad hoc Working Group composed of technical experts dealing with temperature problems, and that this Working Group had met recently and their report would be examined by the next session of the Joint Group of Experts. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany expressed his concern that deviations from the temperature of -18°C were being allowed for extended periods during transport, distribution and retail sale in the Code of Practice. The Commission reaffirmed the importance of maintaining temperature limits as rigorously as possible, particularly as regards the preservation of the product.
Advancement of the Draft Code of Practice to Step 6 of the Procedure
250. The Commission agreed to advance the draft Code of Practice for the Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Foods to Step 6 of the Procedure.
251. The delegate of Spain drew the Commission's attention to paragraph 5 of ALINORM 72/25 where it was stated that a footnote had been added to the text of the Recommended Standard for Quick Frozen Peas (CAC/RS 41-1970), as well as to other Quick Frozen Foods standards, which read as follows: “‘Frozen’: this term is used as an alternative to ‘quick frozen’ in some English-speaking countries”. The delegate of Spain pointed out that in his country the term “congelado rápidamente” used for “quick-frozen” presented some difficulties as regarding labelling, and that the term “congelado” was more acceptable and therefore requested this footnote to be appropriately amended in all standards for quick frozen foods. The Commission agreed to this proposal.
252. The Committee had before it the report of the Sixth Session of the above Committee (ALINORM 72/18). The delegate of Norway, which hosts the Committee, acted as Rapporteur.
253. The Commission had before it for consideration the above standard contained in Appendix III of ALINORM 72/18.
Food Additives
254. The delegate of France pointed out that the Codex Committee on Food Additives at its Eighth Session (1972) had discussed the food additives section of the standard for canned crab meat and that with the exception of calcium disodium EDTA and monosodium glutamate which had been endorsed, the consideration of the other additives had been postponed with a request for clarification or reconsideration by the Commodity Committee (ALINORM 72/12, paragraph 31 and Appendix II, paragraph 11).
255. Several delegates stated that they were against the use of calcium disodium EDTA. The delegate of France, supported by the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany, further indicated that he was against the use of polyphosphates for this product. The delegate of Norway stressed the need for suitable class names for phosphates. The Commission agreed to request the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products to reconsider carefully the question of additives. It was pointed out that prior to consideration of the standard for Canned Crab Meat at Step 8, it was important that the additives section be endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives.
Contaminants
256. The question of contaminants was raised in the discussion on canned crab meat and the Commission was informed that the general problem of contaminants in food had been considered at the Sixteenth Session of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. A brief summary was given of the conclusions of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on the establishment of control measures for contaminants in foods. Attention was drawn to the care which had to be taken before introducing any control measures, taking into consideration the consumption of the product by the population, including excessive consumption, the levels actually found in a wide range of samples of a given product, and the effectiveness of various kinds of control measures which might be taken, such as legal or administrative limits for the contaminant in the food, or recommendations for the restriction of the intake of a particular food. In view of the foregoing, the Commission agreed that it could not take any decision on the issue of contaminants, but it wished to record its concern about the matter. The Commission expressed the hope that WHO would continue its work in the field of contaminants and requested Governments to comment specifically on the contaminants issue when considering the standard at Step 6.
Status of the Draft Standard for Canned Crab Meat
257. The Commission decided to advance the proposed draft standard for Canned Crab Meat to Step 6 of the Procedure.
258. In the introduction of various matters of interest from the Report of the Sixth Session, reference was made to subsequent developments during the Seventh Session (October 1972) of the Committee, the report of which had not yet been issued.
259. At the Eighth Session of the Commission, the delegate of Australia had been requested to prepare a working paper for consideration by the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, with technological details about “frozen” products and data on the extent of international trade in these products (ALINORM 71/31, paragraph 150). The Committee had at its Seventh Session discussed the detailed paper prepared by Australia and had considered the document to be of importance and had recommended to the Commission that it should be brought to the attention of the Joint ECE/Codex Group of Experts on the Standardization of Quick Frozen Foods. The Committee had further suggested that the document should be made available to the ECE Working Party on Transport of Perishable Foods. The Commission concurred with the proposal made by the Fish and Fishery Products Committee.
260. The Commission noted that the sardine question was still under consideration and that it was hoped that a solution to the problem could be found.
261. The Commission was informed that the Committee at its Seventh Session had agreed fully with the decisions taken by the Executive Committee with regard to the merging of codes of hygienic and technological practice for fresh, frozen and canned fish and the procedure to be followed, and that the Committee had further expressed agreement with the proposals made by the Executive Committee with regard to the elaboration of more specific codes for fish and fishery products.
262. The Commission was informed that the Committee at its Seventh Session had briefly considered a French proposal to elaborate group standards for fish and fishery products. The Committee had considered that the idea merited through discussion and that at the next session of the Committee the question would be considered in detail on the basis of government comments received. The Committee had noted that this was a general question fundamental also to the work of several other Codex Committees, and that the Executive Committee had regarded it as a possible subject for consideration by the Codex Committee on General Principles. 1
263. At the Sixth Session it had been pointed out that Codex Standards for canned fish products did not contain requirements relating to can seam quality (ALINORM 72/18, paragraph 102). The Committee considered that a provision of this kind was applicable to all canned foods and would require overall evaluation, not only with regard to fish. The Commission was informed that as far as fish was concerned the matter would, in the first instance, be dealt with in the Code of Practice for Canned Fish and Fishery Products (under elaboration).
264. The delegate of India reiterated the statement of the Indian delegation made at the Eighth Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission with regard to the need to elaborate standards for canned shrimps, dried or packed in brine, and for frog legs (ALINORM 71/31, paragraphs 156 and 157). Several delegates expressed the opinion that the main problem in connection with frog legs was of a hygienic nature and that, therefore, if work was to be undertaken on this product the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene would be the appropriate Committee to deal with the matter. The Commission agreed to request the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene to elaborate a code of hygienic practice for frog legs. The delegate of India expressed the hope that at a later stage a standard would be elaborated in conjunction with the Code of Hygienic Practice. No decision was taken with regard to the elaboration of standards for canned shrimps, dried or packed in brine, and snails.
265. The Chairman of the Committee informed the Commission that not only had the Seventh Session been attended by representative of 34 countries, but that, for the first time, there were delegates from countries which were not producers but solely consumers of fish and fishery products.
266. The Commission agreed to amend in the above named recommended international standards the hygiene section so that the extended provisions relating to microbiological requirements as approved by the Food Hygiene Committee for the draft standard for canned tuna and bonito in water or oil would be included. The Commission further agreed to a correction in the recommended international standards for canned shrimps or prawns by deleting beta-carotene and substituting therefor Canthazanthine C.I. 75135, which was a colour closely related to one of the natural colours present in canned crab.
267. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Norway.
268. The Commission had before it the Report of the Ninth Session of the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate (ALINORM 72/10). The Commission was informed that this Committee had advanced most of the standards for cocoa products and chocolate to Step 5. The Commission noted that the Executive Committee, at its Eighteenth Session, had exceptionally agreed to a request made by the Cocoa Products and Chocolate Committee to seek government comments at Step 6 on these standards in advance of their consideration by the Commission at Step 5. This action had been authorized without prejudice to any decision the Commission might take at Step 5, in order to facilitate consideration of the standards at the Committee's Tenth Session which was scheduled to be held early in 1973 (paragraphs 34, 35 of ALINORM 72/3).
269. The delegate of Switzerland, acting as Rapporteur, pointed out that the Committee might have to reexamine the definitions given in the Standard, e.g. as regards the use of unfermented cocoa beans, so as to bring it into conformity with the FAO Model Ordinance and Code of Practice on Cocoa Beans.
270. The delegate of Ghana also referred to the FAO Model Ordinance and Code of Practice and pointed out that in Ghana and other producing countries steps had been taken at all levels to produce and market cocoa beans in conformity with this Code. However, this Code provided for two grade standards, while the Codex Alimentarius Standards had retained only one category which covered these two grades. The delegate of Ghana thought that a distinction between the two categories was unnecessary.
271. The Commission was of the opinion that there should be uniformity between the standard and the agreements reached in other international proceedings, and agreed that some definitions might have to be slightly revised at the Tenth Session of the Committee.
272. The delegates of the Federal Republic of Germany and Portugal were of the opinion that the use of phosphoric acid, mentioned in section 4 of the Standard, should not be permitted. The delegate of Switzerland pointed out that this issue had been carefully considered at the Ninth Session of the Committee which had agreed upon the very low level of 0.25% phosphoric acid expressed as P2O5, after noting that the quantity would be further reduced on reaching the consumer.
Status of the Draft Standard
273. The Commission decided to advance this proposed draft standard to Step 6 of the Procedure.
274. The Commission decided to advance this proposed draft standard to Step 6 of the Procedure.
275. The delegate of Spain drew the Commission's attention to a proposal by the delegation of the Netherlands for the inclusion of Cocoa Powder for industrial purposes and cocoa powder mixture in the Standard, which in his opinion should not have been published in the Report of the Committee. The Commission was informed by the Secretariat that this proposal had been discussed in detail at the Ninth Session of the Committee which had agreed that it should be sent to governments for comments. This proposal had been attached to the standard as an Annex for reference purposes only and should not be considered as a proposed amendment at Step 5.
276. The proposal covered three groups of products
The delegate of Ireland considered that a standard for Sweetened Cocoa Powder should also make provision for ‘Drinking Chocolate’. In addition, clarification was also needed on the question of milk solids, particularly as to whether skimmed milk powder and whey powder were included in the standard. The delegate of Belgium was of the opinion that cocoa powder for industrial purposes should be considered in the light of quality categories, and proposed that this question be discussed at the Codex Committee on General Principles. The delegate of the Netherlands mentioned that other products for industrial uses, such as glucose syrup had already been approved by the Commission and included in other Codex standards. The Commission's attention was drawn to paragraph 38 of the Report of the Ninth Session wherein it was stated that this proposal would be discussed at the Tenth Session of the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate, on the basis of a new paper to be prepared by the Netherlands' delegation in the light of government comments. The Commission agreed that the question of products intended for industrial purposes needed clarification by the Committee, and that the Netherlands' Proposal, which should be considered as a suggestion for inclusion as in the standard or as a separate parallel standard, would be discussed at the Tenth Session of the Committee.
277. The delegate of Poland expressed a reservation as regards the maximum level of 50 ppm for copper. The delegate of Switzerland was of the opinion that there was not enough data on the actual level of copper in these products and invited the delegates to send any figures for copper as well as for other contaminants to the Chairman of the Committee. The Commission agreed that this matter should be examined further when new data on copper content were available.
Status of the Draft Standard
278. The Commission decided to advance the proposed draft standard to Step 6 of the Procedure.
279. The Commission decided to advance this proposed draft standard to Step 6 of the Procedure.
280. The Commission noted that Article 52 of the Draft International Cocoa Agreement dealing with Cocoa Substitutes recommended that countries subscribing to the agreement should “take fully into account the recommendations and decisions of the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate” when preparing or reviewing regulations on this matter.
281. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Switzerland.
282. The Commission was informed by the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling that this Committee at its Seventh Session had agreed that high priority should be given to the question of sampling (ALINORM 72/23, paragraphs 5, 11 and 90). The Commission noted therefore, that the Eighth Session of the Committee, which was scheduled for September 1973, would be mainly devoted to problems of sampling together with the endorsements of methods of analysis.
283. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Hungary.
284. The Commission was informed about the results of the Fifteenth session of the Milk Committee which had been held from 25 to 30 September 1972 in Rome under the chairmanship of Dr. H.W. Kay (Federal Republic of Germany). The Committee had adopted definitions for reconstituted and recombined milk products, and had elaborated a classification system for cheeses based on firmness, fat and curing characteristics, the aim of which was to reduce the number of international individual cheese standards. The delegates of the U.S.A. and of Italy had come to an informal agreement on the provisions of a working draft standard for hard grating cheese, which would be submitted to the Committee for consideration. The Committee had further dealt with draft standards for several cheese varieties, for yoghurt and for anhydrous milkfat. A draft standard for edible casein and caseinates was under preparation. The work on methods of analysis for milk and milk products carried out jointly by IDF, ISO and AOAC had progressed very satisfactorily.
285. The delegate of New Zealand suggested that the countries mainly interested in casein and caseinates be contacted by the Secretariat in order to assist the Secretariat in the preparation of a draft standard for these products. This was in line with the decision of the Milk Committee. With regard to the standard for anhydrous milkfat, the delegate of New Zealand further pointed out that satisfactory quality requirements as given in the proposal of the Government of New Zealand were of great importance for dairy industries which were based on recombination techniques. This view was supported by the delegate of India who indicated that his country imported large amounts of this commodity.
286. The delegate of Canada, speaking as Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, referred to the views expressed by the Milk Committee on labelling requirements for processed cheese products which would be submitted to the next session of the Commission, and pointed out that there was a difference of opinion between the Milk and Labelling Committees which the Commission would have to resolve. The Chairman of the Commission reminded Members of the Commission of the origin of the Milk Committee and explained the relationship which exists between that Committee and the Labelling Committee.
287. The delegate of Senegal drew attention to the question of intolerance of certain populations to lactose. The commission was informed about the awareness of WHO of this problem and that data were being collected to enable an adequately based opinion to be formed. The Protein Advisory Group to the United Nations had published a statement on the subject in the July issue, 1972 of the WHO chronicle.
288. The Commission noted that the Seventh Session of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils would be held in the Spring of 1974 and that the Committee would be considering, among other matters, possible standards for coconut oil, palm oil, palm-kernel oil, low-fat spreads, certain fish or marine oils and Gas Liquid Chromatography criteria for other fats and oils.
289. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the United Kingdom.
290. The Commission noted that the Sixth Session of the Codex Committee on Sugars would be held in conjunction with the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils in the Spring of 1974. The Committee would be examining the matters referred to in ALINORM 72/33 concerning methods of analysis, sampling and a possible standard for fructose.
291. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Sugars should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the United Kingdom.
292. The Commission had before it the Report of the Eighth Session of the above Committee (ALINORM 72/12). In introducing the report, the Chairman of the Committee, Dr. G.F. Wilmink, gave an outline of the work of the Committee. He drew special attention to the general conclusions of the Committee contained in paragraph 54 of the report, concerning the importance of the estimation of food additive intake and the need for Codex Commodity Committees to give due consideration to the General Principles for the Use of Food Additives, when proposing the use of and limits for substances in food.
293. The Commission noted that under its present working agreement
Codex Commodity Committees were responsible for the proposal of food additives on the basis of full justification for their use, and on the basis of consideration of good manufacturing practices. The maximum levels for food additives thus proposed should, therefore, represent the smallest amount of the additives needed. It was also the responsibility of the Commodity Committees to propose maximum levels in food for various types of contaminants.
On the basis of the recommendations of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives concerning the safety-in-use (acceptable daily intake (ADI) and other restrictions) and an estimate of the potential and, where possible, the actual intake of the food additives, the Codex Committee on Food Additives either endorsed, temporarily endorsed or did not endorse the food additive provisions proposed by the Commodity Committees. The Codex Committee on Food Additives also took into account the availability of specifications of identity and purity of food additives and other relevant questions not dealt with by other bodies (see paragraphs 54–56, ALINORM 72/12).
The Commission noted that, before its Tenth Session in 1974, there would be one session of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, and one session of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Additives and Contaminants Conference.
294. The Commission considered the above definitions adopted by the Codex Committee on Food Additives (see Appendix III to ALINORM 72/12). It was pointed out that the definition of “food additive” had been drafted to exclude typical ingredients such as condiments, spices, salt and nutritional substances such as vitamins, amino acids and trace elements. As regards the definition of “contaminant”, the Commission noted that it included residues of substances, such as antibiotics, hormones and pesticides, which were deliberately used during the production of food. It was pointed out that the definition of “food additive”, as drafted, would include certain flavouring substances which were considered by many as ingredients, and that this matter should be given special attention by the Codex Committee on Food Additives. Noting that the Codex Committee on Food Additives had considered these definitions in great detail, and also noting that they were working definitions intended for the purposes of the Codex Alimentarius, i.e. were not intended for acceptance by governments, the Commission adopted the definitions with out any amendment. It was understood that the Codex Committee on Food Additives would keep the matter of definitions under review.
295. The Commission had before it the above General Principles contained in Appendix IV to ALINORM 72/12. It noted that the General Principles, which were before the Seventh Session of the Commission, had been reconsidered in the light of government comments by the Codex Committee on Food Additives but that no substantial amendments had been made to them. The representative of the International Organization of Consumers Unions (IOCU) was of the opinion that the General Principles should make a specific reference to the appropriate reports of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives in connection with the recommendations in paragraph 1 of the General Principles that substances being proposed for use in food should be subject to “appropriate” toxicological examination. The Commission considered that this would be too restrictive and adopted the General Principles without amendment. It was agreed that they should be published in the 3rd Edition of the Codex Alimentarius Procedural Manual. The Chairman of the Commission was of the opinion that the French text of paragraph 1 of the General Principles should read as follows: “… Soumis aux tests et évaluation …”.
296. The question raised by the Codex Committee on Food Additives concerning the elaboration of specifications for food grade salt (see paragraph 73 of ALINORM 72/12) was discussed in connection with the Report of the Eighth Session of the Coordinating Committee for Europe (see paragraph 234 of this Report).
297. The Commission discussed in detail the question of contaminants in cocoa products, fish and fishery products, and fruit juices, and stressed the importance of protecting the health of the consumer by keeping the level of contamination of food products with copper, mercury, tin and other heavy metals and metalloids as low as practicable. On the proposal of the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Additives, the Commission requested all Codex Commodity Committees to pay full attention to this problem. The need for more data on actual levels of contamination of food products was stressed so as to make it possible for these Committees to prepare a section on contaminants in the various draft Codex Standards. It was noted that several Codex standards did not contain a section on contaminants. As regards contaminants in fruit juices, the Commission was informed that Italy, Poland, United Kingdom and the U.S.A. were carrying out investigations in order to obtain sufficient data on the basis of which recommendations could be made for maximum levels of these contaminants.
298. The opinion was expressed that the Priority Lists agreed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives should deal more closely with specific problems which were of concern from a health point of view, as for example the question of phosphates, nitrites, nitrosamines and mycotoxins. The delegate from Italy drew the Commission's attention to the need for re-evaluation of L-tartaric acid as, on the basis of recent investigations in Italy, it appeared that the acceptable daily intake established by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives was too low. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Food Additives had again requested the Expert Committee on Food Additives to consider the approach adopted by the Council of Europe (Partial Agreement) to the evaluation of flavouring substances. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Food Additives had agreed that there was a need to hold more frequent meetings of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (see paragraph 85, ALINORM 72/12). The representative of WHO informed the Commission that all efforts would be made to convene a meeting of the Expert Committee in 1973 but pointed out that certain difficulties arose in this respect as a result of the Scheduled session of the Joint FAO/WHO Conference on Food Additives and Contaminants. He also informed the Commission that the Expert Committee would consider aflatoxin, tin and several other important items on the Codex Priority Lists as soon as possible. The delegate of Canada considered that the FAO/WHO publications on technological efficacy of food additives were very useful and would be taken into account by his country when considering the acceptance of food additive provisions in Codex standards, and, thus, recommended continuation of this work. It was pointed out that good manufacturing practices, as regards the use of food additives, were affected by climatic conditions and that this matter should be given consideration when recommending the use of food additives in the preparation of food. The Commission agreed that the Codex Committee on Food Additives should consider this matter.
299. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Food Additives should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the Netherlands.
300. The Commission had before it the Report of the Seventh Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (ALINORM 72/22), which was introduced by the Chairman of the Committee Dr. D.G. Chapman (Canada). The Commission was informed that there were three matters arising from the Report on which the Committee sought the guidance of the Commission. These were listed in document ALINORM 72/31 and were summarized as follows:
A request that the Commission should recommend to all the Commodity Committees that they should carefully consider the need for clear date-marking in relation to the particular products for which they were elaborating standards.
The need for better cooperation among countries using the same language in order to arrive at uniform presentation of information on labels.
Whether compliance with the provisions of the Recommended International General Standards for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods on declaration of net contents (section 3.3 of the General Standard) was intended to be on the basis of ‘average contents’, as determined from an adequate sample of containers, or on the basis that each container in the sample must comply with the net contents as declared on the label.
301. The Commission was also informed that as regards (iii) above, the Committee had endeavoured at its Second Session to explain the meaning of net contents (paragraph 53 of ALINORM 72/22) but that the term ‘unreasonable shortage’ had still not been defined.
302. The Chairman of the Committee proposed that if the Commission agreed, the Committee was prepared to re-examine these matters more fully.
303. The delegate of the Netherlands urged that the attention of the Commodity Committees be drawn to the question of date-marking in clear and requested that in the case of foods where date-marking appeared to be desirable this should be accompanied by storage instructions.
304. The delegate of Italy concurred with the general proposal of requesting the Commodity Committees to give consideration to the use of date-marking. However, he was of the opinion that it would be necessary, first of all, to give instructions. He considered that, in any event, the date should be specified for foodstuffs; however, the date should be indicated in clear only for perishable foodstuffs, that is to say, for foodstuffs the date should be indicated in code.
305. The observer of IOCU supported the delegate of the Netherlands in the request that storage instructions should also accompany open date-marking and concerning net contents stated that the majority of their members were opposed to the concept of ‘average weight’. She further declared that they were greatly encouraged by the work being carried out at present by the Codex Committees on Foods for Special Dietary Uses and Food Labelling.
306. The delegate of Belgium referred to paragraph 43 of the Committee's Report concerning the types of date-marking listed. In his opinion the ‘sell-by’ or ‘pull-by’ dates, date of minimum durability, expiry date or estimated last consumption date, when they are used, must, by their nature, be indicated in clear. They should be accompanied by storage instructions. However, as regards the date of production or manufacture or the date of packaging, he considered that these dates could, in certain cases, be in code, since sometimes a year of good production might result in a large stock of a product, which, under proper conditions of storage and processing might be kept for long periods and still remain in perfect condition. If the date of production was to be shown in clear the consumer might be misled into thinking that the product was not of as good a quality as one with a more recent date of production. As regards the term ‘unreasonable shortage’ in paragraph 53 of the Committee's Report, he agreed that this needed to be more clearly defined.
307. The delegate of Norway stated that he was willing to prepare a working paper on the problem of uniform labels in countries of similar languages, which would be presented to the next session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling.
308. The delegate of India stated that in his opinion date-marking in clear of the date of production or manufacture might mislead the consumer, as the maintenance of quality depended on packaging, storage and transportation and, except for a few products (e.g. Baby Foods), it was not considered advisable and, therefore, it would be preferable that these dates should be indicated in code.
309. The delegate of Switzerland agreed that it should be left to the Commodity Committees to decide whether open date-marking was suitable or not for the products for which they were elaborating standards. In this connection, the delegate of Sweden, although he fully supported the proposal that the Codex Commodity Committees should always consider open date-marking and storage instructions, expressed the view that it was somewhat unfortunate that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling had listed in its report five different types of date-marking for the Commodity Committees to choose between. In the opinion of the delegate of Sweden, only three of the dates, namely the ‘sell-by’ or ‘pull-by’ date, date of minimum durability and expiry date or estimated last consumption date would be of benefit to the consumer.
310. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany strongly supported the proposal concerning date-marking in clear, but expressed concern regarding paragraph 38 of the Committee's Report relating to claims, as there seemed to be a possible danger of overlapping with the work of the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses on the same aspects of this subject. Working papers were currently being elaborated on many of the items listed in paragraph 38 for foods for special dietary uses, especially those in the nutritional field and he felt that this aspect of the work of the Labelling Committee might be postponed until after the next session of the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling concurred in this view and stated that the Committee on Food Labelling would await the results of the study being undertaken by the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses, it being understood that these matters would be referred to the Labelling Committee at an appropriate time.
311. The delegate of Japan Stated that the legislation in Japan concerning weights and measures required that the declared net content shall be present at the time of retail sale and that this referred to either the net weight or the drained weight of the actual product. The legislation permitted deviations on an individual basis, depending on the product, and for these reasons Japan could not accept the declaration of net contents based on the average contents as proposed in one of the working documents for the last session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CX/FL 72/8), as this would require daily sampling by industry.
312. The delegate of Switzerland considered that as far as net contents was concerned, he concurred with the Labelling Committee's view point that it referred to average weight.
313. The delegate of New Zealand drew the Commission's attention to paragraph 3 of the Committee's Report where it had been agreed that in relation to the wording concerning the ‘list of ingredients’ in the Recommended International General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, the Committee had agreed that the wording suggested by the Codex Committee on Processed Meat Products (i.e. “descending order of quantity by weight m/m”) was clearer and more specific, but that the original wording in the General Standard should be retained for the time being in order not to affect the standards already sent out to governments for acceptance. The delegate of New Zealand urged that consideration be given to this new labelling terminology which he considered was better.
314. The delegate of Kuwait referred to paragraph 38 of the Committee's Report, where mention was made of claims concerning religious or ritual preparation of food. The delegate stated that in this connection Islamic Law required that a product containing pork or fat of pork should always be declared as such on the label of the product.
315. The Commission agreed with the recommendations of the Chairman of the Food Labelling Committee to consider further the three basic matters outlined above and to request the Commodity Committees to give consideration to the need for date-marking in clear in relation to the products for which they are elaborating standards. The Commission further agreed that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling should first take a decision on the question of ‘average content’ or individual ‘net content’ and then, in the light of the decision taken, the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling would then consider the question of sampling procedures, if necessary. The Commission further noted that the delegate of Norway would prepare a working paper on uniform presentation of information on labels in countries using the same language.
316. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Canada.
317. The Commission noted that the Executive Committee, at its Eighteenth Session, had recommended that a session of the Codex Committee on General Principles should be convened to consider a number of questions arising out of the Executive Committee's review of the progress made in regard to acceptance of Recommended Standards (paragraphs 76 to 87 of ALINORM 72/3).
318. The Executive Committee had drawn attention, in particular, to practical difficulties in the application of the concept of Acceptance with Minor Deviations. These difficulties had been set forth in detail in the Executive Committee's report. While the Executive Committee had recognized the purpose of this concept at the time it was adopted by the Commission, it had come to the conclusion that subsequent experience showed that it would be desirable to re-examine the usefulness and practicability of this concept, as a means of furthering the acceptance of Recommended Standards. The Executive Committee had further recommended that the final Step of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Worldwide Standards concerning the decision to publish a Recommended Standard as a Codex Standard in the Codex Alimentarius should also be examined by the Codex Committee on General Principles, with a view to establishing criteria on which to base such a decision by the Commission. The Executive Committee had also recommended that the Codex Committee on General Principles should study the question of how minority opinion should be considered in subsidiary bodies of the Commission.
319. The Executive Committee had stressed that it would be necessary for the Secretariat to prepare a comprehensive working paper for consideration by the Codex Committee on General Principles. The working paper should cover the various ideas and suggestions which had been discussed in the Executive Committee, and this document should be sent to governments for their comments, which would also be placed before the Codex Committee on General Principles.
320. During the course of the Commission's session, other items were mentioned which might usefully be considered by the Codex Committee on General Principles. In particular, attention was drawn to problems involved in the application of the Acceptance Procedure to the Recommended International Tolerances for Pesticide Residues. The suitability of the Acceptance Procedure for Recommended Tolerances for Pesticide Residues would, as requested by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, need to be looked into by the Codex Committee on General Principles.
321. As instructed by the Commission, the Secretariat and the Chairman of the Commission drew up a list of items for possible inclusion in the Provisional Agenda for the next session of the Codex Committee on General Principles. The following were the items listed:
322. Independent of the question of whether it would be appropriate to include on the Provisional Agenda all of the items listed above, there was general agreement that it would not be possible to give adequate consideration at a one week session to such a large number of items, many of which would require a good deal of time to be dealt with satisfactorily. The Commission decided, therefore, that only items having the highest priority should be listed for discussion at the next session of the Codex Committee on General Principles.
323. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Executive Committee that the time had come to re-examine the Acceptance Procedure for Recommended Standards with Particular reference to Acceptance with Minor Deviations. The Commission also agreed with the recommendation of the Executive Committee that it was necessary to consider the question of the possibility of establishing criteria for determining when it would be appropriate to publish a Recommended Standard in the Codex Alimentarius. During the course of the discussions of the agenda item on pesticide residue tolerances, the attention of the Commission had been directed to the problems connected with the application of the Acceptance Procedure to the Recommended International Tolerances for Pesticide Residues. The Commission agreed that items 1, 2 and 3 in paragraph 321 above were substantive items of great importance to which it attached the highest priority. The Commission agreed, therefore, that these items should be considered by the Codex Committee on General Principles at its next session.
324. With respect to the other items listed in paragraph 321 above, several delegates had different views as to the relative importance of these items in terms of priority for work by the Codex Committee on General Principles.
325. As regards item 4 above, it was the general consensus in the Commission that as the Milk and Milk Products Committee had now aligned its procedures with those of the Codex Alimentarius Commission as requested by the FAO Conference, it was not necessary to retain this item as one of the items for consideration by the Codex Committee on General Principles. However, the suggestion was made that the Codex Committee on General Principles, in considering item 1 above, might wish to bear in mind the specific acceptance and publication procedures which had been developed in regard to the standards for Milk and Milk Products.
326. Concerning item 5 above regarding the possibility of developing general or group standards for groups or classes of similar foods, it was the general consensus in the Commission that this question could more profitably be examined by the various Codex Commodity Committees. In the light of the consideration of this matter by the various Commodity Committees, the Commission would be in a better position to determine whether it would be necessary to refer this subject to the Codex Committee on General Principles.
327. Concerning item 6, the delegate of the U.S.A. stated that he was firmly opposed to the idea of providing for quality grades in Codex Commodity Standards as, in his opinion, under the existing acceptance procedures, this would mean that quality grading would be mandatory and that the present procedure for acceptance of standards would have to be completely re-written. In the U.S.A., quality grading was on a voluntary basis. The delegate of Canada stated that he attached very low priority to the idea of introducing quality grades into Codex standards, more especially as Canada already had mandatory quality grades. Some of the delegates thought that the question of providing for quality grades in Codex standards was a subject which merited discussion at some future time, but no particular priority was assigned to this subject. It was recognized that the subject of quality grades would be a difficult and complex one. The Commission agreed not to include this item for discussion at the next session of the Codex Committee on General Principles.
328. As regards item 7, the Commission decided that this was not a high priority item which would need to be discussed at the next session of the Codex Committee on General Principles, although the subject might need to be discussed at some future time by that Committee (see also paragraph 335 of this Report).
329. As regards item 8, the Commission decided that it would be more appropriate to refer the examination of the implications of the possible elaboration of a Code of Ethics as envisaged by the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment, to the Executive Committee for consideration at its next session.
330. As regards item 9, it was pointed out that the Commission already had the means, under its Rules of Procedure, of converting regional standards into world-wide standards. On the matter of converting world-wide standards into regional standards, a number of delegates expressed doubts as to whether this would be ever likely to arise. It was pointed out, however, that the suggestion was that if it emerged from government replies on acceptances of world-wide Codex standards that there were similar deviations in a region, it might be worthwhile modifying a world-wide standard, on the basis of these deviations, to make it a standard for the region, which might result in Full Acceptance being given by the countries of the region. The Commission thought that this was a subject which it might wish to consider at a future time, but did not think it warranted high priority at this time for discussion at the next session of the Codex Committee on General Principles.
331. The delegate of the U.S.A. stated that it might be desirable to review the Guide to the Consideration of Standards at Step 8 with the object of avoiding the difficulty of having to consider comments which arrive too late to be examined by delegates in advance of the session. The delegate of the U.S.A. also thought that it would be desirable to lay down a Guide to the Consideration of Standards at Step 5 in order to avoid involving the Commission in the detailed technical consideration of these standards. It was agreed that the Codex Committee on General Principles would look into these matters.
332. The Commission decided, therefore, in accordance with the Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on General Principles, that items 1, 2 and 3 should be the substantive items for consideration by the Codex Committee on General Principles at its next session. The Commission also agreed, in accordance with the recommendations of the Executive Committee, that the Secretariat should prepare one or several papers, as might seem appropriate, on these items. The Commission agreed that the working paper or papers prepared by the Secretariat should be sent to governments for their Comments in good time before the session. It was also noted that the delegate of the U.S.A. intended to prepare a position paper on one or more of the subjects to be discussed.
333. The Commission expressed the hope that it would be possible for the French government to provide interpretation facilities in Spanish, as well as in English and French in view of the importance of the subjects to be discussed. The Secretariat undertook to make available the working documents in English, French and Spanish for the next session.
334. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on General Principles should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of France.
