JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME
1. The 18th Session of the Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission was held at the International Conference Centre, Geneva, from 3 to 12 July 1989. The Session was attended by 281 participants including the representatives and observers of 56 countries and observers from 29 international organizations (see Appendix 1 for List of Participants).
2. The Commission was presided over by its Chairman, Dr. E.R. Mendez, Mexico, and for certain items of the Agenda by Dr. N.Tape, Canada, and Professor F.G. Winarno, Indonesia, two of its Vice-Chairmen. The Joint Secretaries were Dr. A.W. Randell, FAO, and Dr. F. Käferstein, WHO.
3. The Session was opened by the Director-General of WHO, Dr. H. Nakajima, the text of whose address is contained in Appendix 2 to this Report. The response of the Chairman is contained in Appendix 3.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND TIMETABLE (Agenda Item 1)
4. The Commission adopted the Provisional Agenda ALINORM 89/1 and Addendum 1 as the Agenda for its Session with a slight change in the order of discussion of certain items.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS OF THE COMMISSION (Agenda Item 4)
5. During the Session, the Commission re-elected Dr. E.R. Mendez, Mexico, as Chairman of the Commission to serve from the end of the 18th Session to the end of the 19th Session. The Commission also elected Dr. C.Kane, Senegal; Dr. N. Tape, Canada; and Prof. F. G. Winarno, Indonesia, as Vice-Chairmen of the Commission to serve from the end of the 18th Session to the end of the 19th Session.
Appointment of Regional Coordinators
6. The following persons were appointed as Regional Coordinators for:
Africa - Mr. Tawfic Zagloul (Egypt)
Asia - Dr. Pakdee Pothisiri (Thailand)
Europe - Dr. Herbert Woidich (Austria)
Latin America and the Caribbean - Lic. Maria Eugenia Chacon Moroux (Costa Rica)
North America and South West Pacific - Dr. Lester Crawford (USA)
7. The Commission observed one minute's silence in memory of its former friends and colleagues who had passed away since its previous session:1
Prof. G. Weill (France), former Chairman of the Commission, 1971–72, and Vice-Chairman
Dr. Alfredo Dovat (Uruguay), former Coordinator for the Region of Latin America and the Caribbean
Dr. Mrs. Anne Brincker (Denmark), former Vice-Chairman of the Commission and Chairman of the Codex Committee on Processed Meat and Poultry Products
Dr. Bob Weik (USA), Member of the US Delegation on many occasions, and former Chairman of the Joint FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products.
Dr. Donald Houston (USA), Leader of the US Delegation and a strong supporter of the Commission and its work.
REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN ON THE 35th and 36th SESSIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (Agenda Item 2)
8. In introducing the reports of the 35th and 36th Sessions of the Executive Committee contained in documents ALINORM 89/3 and ALINORM 89/4, respectively, the Chairman indicated that all items considered by the Executive Committee should be dealt with by the Commission under the agenda items relating to the matters concerned.
MEMBERSHIP OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION (Agenda Item 3)
9. The Chairman informed the Commission that following the 17th Session, the Deputy Director-General of FAO had contacted all non-members of the Commission informing them of the benefits of membership and inviting them to join the Commission. At the same time the Director-General of WHO transmitted the 40th World Health Assembly's Resolution on the Commission inviting member states which had not yet done so to join. As a result eight countries have joined the Commission: Antigua and Barbuda; Equatorial Guinea; German Democratic Republic; Honduras; Papua New Guinea; Rwanda; Viet Nam; Yemen Arab Republic. The total membership of the Commission was now 137 countries and is set out in Appendix 4 to this Report.
10. The Commission expressed its appreciation for the efforts of the parent organization and requested that these efforts be continued so as to increase the membership of the Commission.
11. The Commission had before it ALINORM 89/2, a paper prepared by the Secretariat on the basis of discussions which took place during the 35th Session of the Executive Committee (ALINORM 89/3, paras. 13-17). The paper described the presentation of the revised Codex Alimentarius in loose-leaf international A-4 format in 14 volumes together with a new abridged version containing the substantive contents of the Codex Alimentarius in a single volume.
12. The Commission noted that the revised publications would be distributed through the world-wide sales networks of FAO and WHO as had been recommended by the 36th Session of the Executive Committee, ALINORM 89/4 paras. 7-10. A sufficient number of copies would be distributed without charge to Codex Contact Points and Ministries of Agriculture and Health and libraries which have reciprocal arrangements with FAO and WHO. The Commission welcomed these proposals.
13. The Commission was also informed that the Secretariat was actively seeking ways in which the Codex Alimentarius would become available in a computerized form possibly through readily accessible data bases, and by title through the FAO World Agricultural Information Centre, WAICENT. A small expert group would be invited to advise on techniques available for storage and retrieval of Codex texts in this manner.
14. The delegation of Sweden, referring to the discussions of the Executive Committee concerning the issuance of the Codex Alimentarius as a sales document, drew attention to the need to assure that Codex Standards should be widely available, if necessary through the use of photocopies, or, in future, through the use of electronic data transfer. The Delegation of the United Kingdom requested that the problems which might be encountered in this regard should be carefully studied and that Contact Points should be consulted concerning their distribution needs.
15. The Commission had before it ALINORM 89/3 containing detailed information on replies received since the 17th Session up to shortly before the current session of the Commission. It was noted that this document was based on replies received from Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Finland, Iran, Madagascar, Malaysia, New Zealand, Portugal, Switzerland, Thailand and USA. In addition, the Commission was informed that Cuba had notified its position of full acceptance for four Codex Standards and free circulation for one other Codex Standard.
16. The delegation of Argentina stated that a number of Codex Standards had been considered and used such as those of Sugars, Processed Meat and Poultry Products, Fish and Fishery Products, Labelling, Cocoa, Fruit Juices, Fats and Oils and Methods of Analysis and Sampling. A significant number of Recommended International Codes of Hygienic and/or Technological Practice were also adopted as guidelines in the country.
17. The Delegation of Thailand stated that Codex Standards served as guidelines for its food industry and it had accepted, with specified deviation, the General Standard for Irradiated Foods. The recommended Codes of Hygienic Practice were also implemented in this country.
18. The Delegation of Brazil stated that the Codex Standards were being studied in Brazil. Limited acceptance had been given to 23 Codex Standards and full acceptance to 28 Codex Standards. The Delegation stated that 40 Codex Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues had been accepted. Implementation of the Codes for Canned Fish and Frozen Fish were also adopted.
19. The Delegation of Switzerland stated that the list of acceptances referenced in document ALINORM 89/5 should be considered in the context of Point 4.B of the Procedural Manual, which provided for free distribution of prtoducts within the country's territorial jurisdiction.
20. The Delegation of Iran provided details on the acceptances of many Codex Standards and of proposed levels for radionuclide contamination of foods. The Delegation also noted that it was currently considering recommendations for Maximum Residue Levels for Veterinary Drugs.
21. The Commission expressed its appreciation for the information provided and stressed that countries should continue to give favourable consideration to notifying the Secretariat that products in conformity with Codex standards will be permitted free entry into and distribution within their territorial jurisdictions. If this presented a problem then the Secretariat would take up the matter at its intersecretariat discussions with economic groupings, such as the EEC and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) and maintain its efforts to have Codex standards accepted by individual countries.
22. The Commission received a report on the budgets of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme for the biennia 1986/87, 1988/89 and 1990/91 (ALINORM 89/6 and paras. 3–6, ALINORM 89/4).
23. In introducing the report, the Chief of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme indicated that the Codex budget continued to be maintained on a "zero growth" basis, although a small additional amount (US$ 10 000) had been provided by FAO for the 1990/91 biennium to cover the cost of new computer services. During the 1986/87 biennium unexpected fluctuations in the Italian lira/US dollar exchange rate had created budgetary problems but the resulting deficit of $ 250 000 was paid from an extraordinary contribution from FAO. However, the budget for 1988/89 would enable the Programme to proceed satisfactorily throughout the biennium. In addition, tighter control of Codex documentation and printing costs would make it possible to publish all Codex standards and other final texts delayed since 1986/87.
24. The cost sharing arrangements between FAO and WHO had not changed and still reflected a contribution by FAO of 75 percent and by WHO of 25 percent to the Joint FAO/WHO Standards Programme budget. However, additional costs met by FAO covering documents and contractual services, reflected an actual cost sharing at a level which resulted in FAO paying 83 percent and WHO 17 percent of total Codex costs. Some countries attending the June 1989 FAO Council Session had expressed the view that the share borne by FAO was unduly heavy, calling for a more equitable sharing of Codex costs.
25. The Commission noted the 1988/89 and 1990/91 budgets of the Programme and also noted the high cost of documentation. It expressed its appreciation to FAO for its strong financial support of the Programme and to the Secretariat for its efforts in carrying out the work of the Commission within the available budgetary provision. The Commission looked forward to the issue of the revised version of the Codex Alimentarius. It urged Chairmen of Codex committees to economize with reports, circulars and other documents, in order to allow more resources for the publication of final texts.
REPORT ON ACTIVITIES WITHIN FAO AND WHO RELEVANT TO THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION (Agenda Item 8)
26. The Commission had before it document ALINORM 89/7 which reported very extensively on Joint FAO/WHO Activities; FAO Activities; and WHO Activities separately.
REPORT ON JOINT FAO/WHO ACTIVITIES
Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR)
27. Two Joint FAO/WHO Meetings on Pesticide Residues have been held since the Seventeenth Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. These were held in September 1987 and September 1988. Forty-five pesticides were included on the agenda for toxicological evaluation and/or maximum residue levels for various commodities in 1987, and 42 pesticides were evaluated in 1988. The recommendations of JMPR are used by FAO and WHO Member States in the establishment of national regulations and by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues in establishing Codex MRLs.
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)
28. The FAO Joint Secretary informed the Commission that three meetings of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) had been held since the Commission's last session. These were:
the 33rd Meeting held in Geneva, March 1988, to evaluate food additives;
the 34th Meeting also held in Geneva, February 1989, to evaluate veterinary drug residues in food;
the 35th Meeting held in Rome, June 1989, to evaluate food additives.
29. The two meetings devoted to food additives (33rd and 35th) evaluated a total of 34 substances including antioxidants, colours, emulsifiers, flavouring agents and various miscellaneous additives which included solvents and processing aids. These meetings also evaluated nine food contaminants including metals, a plasticizer, a mycotoxin (patulin) and two environmental contaminants (methyl mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls). In addition, the specifications for purity and identity for a total of 18 food additives were revised.
30. The Commission was informed that the 34th Meeting of JECFA was devoted exclusively to the safety evaluation of veterinary drug residues in foods. This was the second such meeting and a total of 10 drug substances was considered. These included 4 nitroimidazoles, an anthelmintic, 2 sulfonamides, a growth promoter (trenbolone acetate) and 2 trypanosides. Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) levels could be established for only 4 drug substances. Of these, 3 were given a recommended Maximum Residue Level (MRL). There was insufficient information to establish an MRL for the fourth substance given an ADI.
31. The Commission was advised that much of the difficulty in the safety evaluation of veterinary drug residues was due to characterizing and determining the bioavailability of “bound residues”. These represent non-extractable residues with varying toxicological significance.
32. In addition to the regular JECFA reports, the Commission was informed that an additional publication had been issued recently as a result of a JECFA Meeting. This was FAO Food and Nutrition Paper Number 45 entitled “Exposure of Infants and Children to Lead” which was initially a working paper prepared for the 30th meeting of JECFA, but was considered of sufficient interest and importance to be published as a separate document.
33. The Commission was advised that FAO was consolidating all current JECFA specifications into one volume. This was being done with the support of the Japan Food Additives Association which had provided a food additives expert to review, edit and assemble the combined volume. This effort would include updating the present FAO/WHO food additives data system. The JECFA Secretariat had kept a record of corrections presented at previous CCFAC meetings, and these would be included in the final consolidated volume. No firm decision had been made concerning whether the combined volume would be in bound or loose-leaf binder format.
34. The Commission was further advised that FAO was updating and revising the Guide to JECFA Specifications (FAO Food and Nutrition Paper Number 5) which was last revised in 1983.
35. Finally, the Commission was informed that two JECFA meetings had been planned for 1990. These were the 36th meeting on veterinary drug residues in foods, scheduled for Rome in February 1990; and the 37th meeting on food additives scheduled for Geneva in June 1990.
Joint FAO/WHO Contamination Monitoring Programme
36. The Joint FAO/WHO Food Contamination Monitoring Programme had been established under the Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS) of the United Nations Environment Programme to coordinate and stimulate monitoring activities at national, regional and global levels for the early detection and control of Pollution in the environment. A description of the Programme's activities was contained in ALINORM 89/7. The Commission was informed of the work on monitoring levels of certain pesticides, PCBs, heavy metals and aflatoxins. It was noted in particular that the data collected under the programme were available to the subsidiary bodies of the Commission for use in establishing maximum levels of contaminants in commodity standards. The Commission was informed of the valuable assistance provided by the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom and WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, in the provision of support of the laboratory quality assurance aspects of the programme. It was pointed out that the results of these studies to date indicate that large differences exist between laboratories with regard to analytical capability. As a result, training and other assistance was being provided to improve on the quality of the data produced. The Commission was advised that a joint FAO/WHO/UNEP review meeting was to be held in late July 1989 to review the joint programme and determine the future role of the programme. The Commission recommended that this review meeting be informed of the Commission's concern about the quality of data being generated by the Joint Programme and that urgent action be taken under the Programme to improve the quality of data submitted by countries.
37. The Commission was informed of the results of the Second Joint FAO/WHO/UNEP International Conference on Mycotoxins and the recommendations made. The Conference in particular, supported the work of the Codex Alimentarius leading to international harmonization of approaches to regulatory control measures. The Conference adopted 16 specific recommendations addressed to the prevention of mycotoxin development, monitoring and control of mycotoxin contamination, training, information and research. The report of the Conference had been widely distributed among countries and provided policy makers with a basis for decision-making in respect of the control of mycotoxin in foods.
Joint FAO/WHO Regional Workshops
38. The Commission was informed concerning the holding of Joint FAO/WHO Regional Workshops in Indonesia, Egypt, Costa Rica and Mexico, and which included the topics of food safety, control of food export and imports, and food legislation and standardization.
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Recommended Allowances of Nutrients for Food Labelling Purposes
39. The Commission was informed that the Consultation had been organized in response to the request of the Commission at its 17th Session. The Consultation was held in Helsinki, Finland, in September 1988, and was made possible by the support of the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Finland. The Consultation reviewed the current recommended intakes of nutrients established at national and international levels and discussed available data on RDI/RDAs as well as the Reference RDAs of the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling. The Consultation recommended that a “Nutrient Reference Value” be used for nutrition labelling to clearly indicate to consumers that the references served only as a standard for comparison of nutrient content of foods and did not relate to individual nutrient needs. The Consultation had established a list of 15 nutrients with their respective Nutrient Reference Values. The Consultation report had been published and presented to both the 16th Session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, and the 20th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling.
40. The Commission expressed its appreciation and support to FAO and WHO for the joint efforts being taken to support national food control activities. The Commission noted with keen interest the joint activities of the two organizations and requested to be kept fully informed on these issues.
41. The Commission was informed that the Conference proceedings had been published by IAEA, on behalf of the sponsoring Organizations, in June 1989. The proceedings contained the following: (i) opening statements made by, or on behalf of, the executive heads of the four sponsoring organizations, (ii) opening speeches made by the Chairman of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and by the Chairman of the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation, (iii) the keynote papers presented at the Conference together with the discussions that followed them, (iv) the Document on Food Irradiation being the “outcome” of the Conference in English, French, Spanish and Russian, and (v) the list of participants.
42. In addition, the Commission was informed that WHO, under cover of a Note Verbale (C.L. 13-1989) of 20 June 1989, had distributed to its Member States a document containing questions raised by the International Organization of Consumer Unions (IOCU) regarding the safety of irradiated food, together with an authoritative WHO reply to these questions (document No. WHO/EHE/FOS/89.1).
43. The Commission requested WHO to distribute this document to all Codex Contact Points.
44. The Commission was informed of specific activities relating to cooperation with member governments, particularly those of developing countries, which were described in detail in Part B of ALINORM 89/7 and which were carried out by the FAO Food Control and Consumer Protection Group in the Food Quality and Standards Service.
Food Control Assistance to Developing Countries including promotion of coherent national food quality control systems and the organization of national food control strategy workshops remained high priority. Increased attention was being paid to programmes dealing with export and import certification of food and agriculture products and where applicable Codex Standards were being recommended.
Food Contamination Surveys and Training in Food Contamination Control were carried out within the overall efforts to strengthen food control systems in developing countries. They also supported the activities of the FAO/WHO Food Contamination Monitoring Programme. Regional activities had been supplemented by additional activities in specific developing countries.
Training continued to receive high priority. A regional network of training centres has been established in the Asian Region to strengthen various food laboratory and inspection activities. Establishment of a similar network of training centres in Latin America was planned in the near future. The countries of Canada, Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the USA were cited for their excellent cooperation and assistance in providing training to individuals from FAO projects.
Food Control laboratories in several countries had received assistance in strengthening their national capabilities and programme. An Asian regional workshop on laboratory management was held in late 1988 in Bangkok.
Street Foods - FAO has continued supporting activities to determine the types and levels of contaminants found in street foods which in some countries was the major source of food intake for some of the populations. Work to improve the conditions under which these foods were being sold was being undertaken. The problems appear to be national rather than international. Regional workshops have been held so as to coordinate the activities on a regional basis. An Expert Consultation on Street Foods was held in Indonesia in late 1988 and the report was made available to the Commission delegates. Follow-up activities are planned so as to improve the quality and safety of these foods.
45. The Delegations of India and Indonesia expressed their appreciation for the training activities conducted by FAO in the context of the regional network of training centres for food control. The Delegation of China also expressed its appreciation to FAO for the training activities offered, and welcomed the possibility for the establishment of further training centres by FAO or other international bodies. The Delegation stressed the importance of training in the field of import and export inspection of food commodities.
46. The Commission was informed about the Regional Training Programmes for analysis of foods for determination of radionuclide contamination. An Asian Regional Workshop was held in early 1989, and similar programmes were scheduled in late 1989 in Kuwait for the countries of the Middle East, in 1990 in Mexico for the Latin American countries, and Ghana for the countries of Africa.
47. As a follow-up to the 2nd International Conference on Mycotoxins, sub-regional training workshops on aflatoxin analysis had been held in Malawi and Trinidad. A similar workshop was scheduled to be held in late 1989 in Francophone Africa. The Commission was informed concerning the establishment of a network of training institutions utilizing existing institutes in Asia for mycotoxin control. The joint FAO/UNEP/UNEPCOM project was scheduled to commence in mid-1990 and is to include training centres in India, the Philippines, Thailand and the USSR, and would concentrate on sampling and analysis for aflatoxin, providing advice and guidance regarding prevention of mycotoxins and analytical methodology for mycotoxins other than aflatoxins.
International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides
48. The Commission was informed of the work of FAO in promoting the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and especially the provision of prior consent which is being actively pursued. Dissemination of the Code was widely made and regional and sub-regional workshops arranged to harmonize potential registration requirements.
49. The Commission was informed of the assistance being provided to upgrade national food export programmes. Workshops were held in Asia, Africa and Latin America to discuss problems associated with the exports of foods. In addition, Finland had provided funds to FAO to assist in conducting a global review of problems associated with food imports. An international meeting on food export/import problems was planned to be held in late 1990 at FAO, Rome, to harmonize national activities.
50. The Commission was informed regarding recent FAO publications which included a food sampling manual, the Report of the 1988 Expert Consultation on Street Foods, and a manual on Management of Food Control Programmes prepared under the Regional Project Network of Training Centres for Food Inspectors in Asia. The Commission was advised that work was proceeding on the preparation of a Manual on Quality Assurance for the Food Control Laboratory with publication planned for mid-1990.
51. The Commission was informed that WHO's work included in ALINORM 89/7 would only refer to global and interregional activities and not to country level and regional activities which were the responsibility of WHO's six Regional Offices. The country level and regional activities would be reported on by the responsible regional staff to the Regional Coordinating Committees.
52. Concerning health education in food safety, the Commission learned of an interregional seminar on this topic for Muslim countries of Africa and Asia to be convened in Amman, Jordan, in 1990.
53. The Commission was also informed that the report on the WHO Consultation on Health Surveillance and Management Procedures for Food Handling Personnel would be available in 1–2 months as part of WHO's Technical Report Series. This consultation had concluded that routine medical and laboratory examination was very costly but ineffective in preventing food contamination and thus food-borne diseases, and governments and industry were advised to discontinue this practice. Instead, it was recommended to adopt more cost-effective measures such as health education, staff self-reporting of illness, implementation of HACCP and strengthening of food-borne disease surveillance. Since these recommendations would have consequences for several Codex Codes of Hygienic Practice, the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene would be thoroughly briefed on the outcome of this consultation.
54. Concerning the exchange of information on drugs, a plea was made to the participants to inform WHO's Pharmaceutical Programme on regulatory decisions, at the national level, regarding safety and efficacy of veterinary drugs and other relevant information. This information would then be published in WHO's Pharmaceuticals Newsletter and/or in other relevant WHO journals which were regularly distributed to public health authorities of WHO Member States.
Activities of the Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI)
55. The Commission learned that the ICGFI Consultation on Microbiological Criteria for Foods to be Irradiated had recommended, for several food commodities, microbiological guidelines as indicators of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), regardless of whether these foods were intended to be irradiated or processed in any other way. The report on this consultation would be available from WHO in late 1989, and the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene would also receive an extensive report on this consultation.
56. The Commission congratulated FAO and WHO for their work in strengthening national food control infrastructures, including the emphasis placed on training, and requested that this work continue to receive high priority.
REPORT OF ACTIVITIES OF OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (Agenda Item 9)
57. The Commission had before it document ALINORM 89/8 containing a summary of activities of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE).
ISO activities of interest to the Commission
58. The Representative of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) drew the attention of the Commission to Section II of document ALINORM 89/8 which contained a short summary of the work of ISO/TC 34 “Agricultural Food Products” and referred to the existing cooperation between the sub-committees of ISO/TC 34 and the Codex Alimantarius Commission. He reminded the Commission that the policy adopted by ISO in the field of agricultural products had been recognized by the Commission as a basis of its cooperation with ISO.
59. The Commission noted that the ISO Central Secretariat had, in response to requests by ISO member bodies and international organizations, published a selective list of ISO standards for food technology. This list, published in both English and French, included the reference numbers and titles of about 450 ISO standards covering various aspects such as terminology, methods of analysis and sampling, and in a few cases also specifications.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE)
60. The observer from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) brought to the attention of the Commission the work recently completed by the Group of Experts on Coordination of Standardization for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables, on the harmonization of its standards with the revised standard layout for UN/ECE standards, and the active role taken by the Group in discussing in depth the various aspects of the work of the Codex Committee on Tropical Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, and expressing its views to the relevant Codex Committees. The attention of the Commission was also drawn to the establishment of a new group of experts on standardization of porcine and bovine meat which is expected to begin work in 1990 to harmonize national standards for porcine carcasses and port cuts, and extend it later to bovine meat.
61. Many delegations expressed concern about the duplication of work on food standardization by the UN/ECE and cited as examples the work on tropical fruits and vegetables and harmonization of national standards for porcine and bovine carcasses and cuts. The Commission expressed the view that duplication of work on food standards by Regional bodies should be avoided. The Secretariat informed the Commission of the steps it was taking to avoid duplication and cited as an example its efforts to elicit comments from all Codex Contact Points on the draft standard on mangoes elaborated by OECD.
62. The Delegation of Tanzania drew attention to the work of the International Organization for Standardization which had considerted commercial standards for cashew nuts and noted that similar work was presently being undertaken by UN/ECE. In its view, the position of UN/ECE, which is of a very limited membership of countries in Europe, could prove unfair to many developing countries which have a significant interest in cashew nuts.
International Trade Centre (ITC/UNCTAD/GATT)
63. The Representative of the International Trade Centre reported briefly on the work of the Centre. The Commission noted that the International Trade Centre was not a food standardization body but supported food standardization work by cooperating with different bodies active in food standardization, dissemination of information on food standards and creation of awareness among the countries on the need for food standardization. It also noted that the Trade Centre has established a system for quality inspection of foods.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN)
64. The delegation of Norway drew the attention of the Commission to the work on elaboration of standards on fruit juices by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN). The observer from EEC stated that the standards on fruit juices originally envisaged by the European Committee for Standardization encompass (i) Standards of Identity and (ii) Methods of Analysis. However, CEN had since agreed not to proceed with work on standards of identity. The observer expressed the view that there would be no incompatibility between the activities of the EEC, CEN and the UNECE/Codex Group of Experts on Fruit Juices. He also expressed the view that there was no cause for alarm with regard to activities undertaken by CEN on standardization of fruit juices.
65. The Secretariat introduced document ALINORM 89/9 which contained a summary report of the statements made by governments in regard to the implementation of the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food (CAC/RCP 20-1979, Rev. 1 1985) both at previous sessions of the Commission and also at sessions of the Coordinating Committees.
66. The Commission noted that the Secretariat was taking active interest in promoting the Code of Ethics. Several communications had been sent to member nations of FAO and WHO during the past few years, the last one being Communication G/CX 2, March 1988, urging implementation of the Code by governments, especially by governments of exporting countries, and all those concerned with international trade in food.
67. The Delegation of the United States of America informed the Commission of its fullest support to the principles contained in the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food and had encouraged other countries to accept the Code.
68. The Delegation of Hungary stated that the current Hungarian Food Act fulfilled all the principles and requirements of the Code of Ethics and that there were no clauses in the Code which could cause problems in trade. Based on the proposal of the Group of Experts who reviewed the Hungarian Food Act, all the interested ministries of Hungary conveyed their approval to accept the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food. The Commission noted that a formal communication would shortly be sent to this effect.
69. The Delegation of India recognized the importance of the Code of Ethics in maintaining the quality of food moving in international trade and in establishing good trade relationships among all the trading countries. Using the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food as the basis, the industrial sector in India has developed a national code for control of trade in food within the country, which would go a long way in improving not only food trade but the ethical aspects involved in the production and marketing of quality food.
70. The Delegation of Algeria stated that the principles contained in the Code of Ethics were taken into consideration in the 1989 Algerian Law on General Rules relating to the Protection of Consumers, and related texts for its application. In its view, such a Code constituted only a moral obligation for the countries which adopted it and did not guarantee the quality of the food moving in trade. This guarantee can be provided only by the strengthening of national legislation and food control systems. The delegation expressed a wish that all Codex Commodity Standards should contain in the same document: (i) Compositional requirements; (ii) List of defects; (iii) Possible adulterants; (iv) Inspection methods (critical points to be checked); (v) Sampling methods, and (vi) Analytical methods. This could then be used as an easy reference and would prove useful to many of the developing countries.
71. The Delegation of Switzerland also stressed the need for the setting up of an infrastructure in all countries for the control of the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food.
72. The Commission noted the importance of the Code of Ethics in export and import trade and stressed the need for all countries to set up the required infrastructure for the control of the Code. It asked the Secretariat to continue to monitor implementation of the Code and to report on further progress to its next session.
73. The Secretariat introduced ALINORM 89/10, concerning Relations with GATT and its Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (Part A) and the Negotiating Group on Agriculture (Part B). The Commission welcomed the participation of representatives from the GATT Agriculture Division and the Technical and Other Barriers to Trade Division during its deliberations.
74. The Commission noted that the working paper summarized the current status of the ongoing relationship between the Commission and GATT, and included discussions concerning this issue during the 9th Session of the Codex Committee on General Principles (paras. 18–30, ALINORM 89/33). The Commission also noted discussions concerning this issue at the 36th Session of the Executive Committee (paras. 25 to 29, ALINORM 89/4).
75. The Secretariat informed the Commission of its attendance at the GATT Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade meetings in September 1988 and May 1989 as well as the Uruguay Round Negotiating Group on Agriculture, Working Group on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulations and Barriers meeting in November 1988, where information was presented conerning the general activities of Codex, including reports on current GATT/Codex cooperation. In its presentation to the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, the Observer from the Codex secretariat had stressed the importance of the avoidance of duplication of effort with the Committee and had noted that the procedures established for the exchange of notifications would be continued so as to keep national Codex Contact Points and parties to the TBT Agreement informed of standardization activities within Codex and at the national level. Following the presentation of the document ALINORM 89/10 to the Committee at its meeting on 16 June 1989, the delegation of the European Economic Community had stated that there was need for further careful consideration of this document and that this delegation reserved its position with respect to it.
76. The Secretariat also informed the Commission of activities of GATT which had endorsed the harmonization of national sanitary and phytosanitary regulations as a long-term goal through a work programme embodying seven objectives (Annex III, ALINORM 89/10). The Secretariat especially noted objective number 2, which seeks to ensure that measures taken to protect human, animal or plant life or health are consistent with sound scientific evidence and use suitable principles of equivalency as well as objective number 6, concerning the need for technical assistance for developing countries regarding sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The Commission was informed that the implementation of these obejctives, although endorsed in principle, were still subject to development within GATT.
77. The Secretariat assured the Commission that attendance as observers at each other's meetings to facilitate the exchange of information would continue in the future.
78. The GATT representatives informed the Commission that GATT was not a standards setting body, but facilitated international trade through a set of rules and forums for dispute settlement. It was noted that the current GATT agricultural negotiations were meant to tighten loopholes in disciplines on agricultural trade, and a Working Group on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulations and Barriers had been established to reduce the use of sanitary and phytosanitary regulations as unnecessary barriers to trade. In discussing the seven objectives of the working group, it was indicated that the objectives would encourage GATT member countries to use internationally accepted standards and would allow GATT to seek the expert advice and assistance of international organizations such as Codex in agricultural dispute situations.
79. The Commission was also informed that the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, which entered into force in 1980, had 38 members. It was the only inter-governmental agreement that addressed matters regarding the prevention of technical obstacles to trade.
80. The Agreement also promoted the use of international standards by parties as a basis for their national standards and encouraged the participation of Parties in international standardization activities. The Agreement included procedures for dissemination of information and notifications.
81. The GATT representative explained that the dispute settlement procedures under the Agreement provided for consultations, investigation by the Committee and the establishment of a panel and/or a technical expert group. The Agreement also included provisions which allowed the Committee to have recourse to appropriate advice and assistance from competent bodies and experts during dispute settlement procedures. It was indicated further that negotiations were currently being held in the Uruguay Round in order to improve, clarify and expand the Agreement in the area of testing, inspection and approval procedures; transparency; second level obligations; processes and production methods.
82. The Delegation of the United States supported all four proposals of the Codex Committee on General Principles (CCGP), for continuing and strengthening the relationship between Codex and GATT, as they were consistent with current Uruguay Round negotiations concerning the harmonization of sanitary and phytosanitary measures making use of the work of Codex, the International Office of Epizootics and the International Plant Protection Convention. The Delegations of Argentina, Australia, Canada, Malaysia and New Zealand also supported the adoption of all four CCGP proposals, as they could assist in the elimination of unnecessary sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to trade.
83. The support of technical bodies in the elimination of arbitrary barriers to trade in the fields of health and consumer protection was also felt to be desirable, as was the increased visibility of Codex as a result of its relationship with GATT.
84. The Delegations of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, India, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Thailand, and the observer from IOCU, supported the efforts towards strengthened cooperation and coordination with GATT as well as the first three proposals of CCGP. Support for the fourth proposal of CCGP concerning the amendment of the Codex Procedural Manual to include a reference to GATT was felt to be premature, as the long-term objectives of the GATT Working Group had yet to be finalized. The Delegation of France also stated that the Procedural Manual already copntained provisions for interaction with international organizations and did not prevent Codex/GATT collaboration. The significance and recognition of consumers in the development of national regulations was also stressed by the Delegation of the United Kingdom and supported by several of these Delegations. It was, however, pointed out by the Delegations of Norway and Spain that the interests of consumers were already taken into account by Codex and national governments, and in turn would be also by GATT if GATT were to recognize the work of Codex. The importance of maintaining the optional and flexible characteristics of Codex standards was pointed out as an integral part of any Codex/GATT agreement. The Delegation of Egypt also indicated that the dietary intake and habits of consumers should be considered in addition to safety aspects, and also stated that whereas the primary objective of GATT was the improvement of trade, the improvement of public health was one of the major objectives of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Delegation of Switzerland also emphasized the importance of coordination between Codex national delegates and national GATT representatives in the harmonization process. The Delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany also suggested the dissemination of reports concerning relevant GATT deliberations to Codex Contact Points, especially in view of the complexity of issues involved.
85. The Commission expressed its support concerning cooperative efforts with GATT, and noted that the mechanisms of this relationship were subject to further development. It was also stressed that consumer concerns were always taken into account by the Commission and GATT through the participation of national representatives. The Commission also emphasized that the flexibility of Codex standards should be maintained, unless changed by the Commission through the revision of acceptance procedures or by other means. The Secretariat indicated that information on progress in the GATT negotiations would be circulated to Codex Contact Points, and also highlighted the importance of communication between GATT and Codex representatives.
86. The GATT representatives agreed that the objectives of the GATT Working Group were subject to further study and that the mechanisms for cooperation between GATT and Codex were under development. The Commission was also assured that GATT would not be judging Codex Standards, nor be creating international standards during any of its deliberations.
87. The Commission thanked the GATT representatives for attending and participating at the Session, and agreed to the need to avoid duplication of work with GATT, while emphasizing Codex goals of consumer protection, health and the facilitation of trade. It was further agreed that the flexibility of Codex standards would also be maintained. The Commission also noted that the Uruguay Round discussions agreed with the principles and objectives of Codex, and that the cooperation between Codex and GATT would benefit both organizations.
88. The Committee adopted the following recommendations of the Codex Committee on General Principles:
The Commission should continue to assure that possible areas of conflict are harmonized and duplication of effort is avoided with the GATT Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade.
The CAC Secretariat should make every effort, in collaboration with the GATT Secretariat, to ensure the participation of the CAC Secretariat at sessions of the GATT Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade and of the GATT Secretariat at sessions of CAC when matters of mutual concern are under consideration.
The existing notification mechanism for the exchange of information should be examined for possible revision and use by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
89. It further agreed that the proposal to amend the Elaboration Procedures to make specific reference to GATT would continue to be kept under review and would be examined by the next session of the Codex Committee on General Principles.
90. The Commission had before it document ALINORM 89/11, prepared jointly by FAO and WHO following the recommendations of the 21st Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants, and Conference Room Document LIM 3 containing the written comments of Austria, Canada and the United Kingdom. The paper was introduced by Dr. P. Waight (WHO) who drew the Commission's attention to the extremely conservative assumption contained in the methodology used in deriving the recommended guideline levels, the simplicity of their use and application, and their flexibility in that they could be used in any accident situation with any mixture of contaminating radionuclides.
91. All of the delegations which spoke expressed their appreciation to FAO and WHO for the rapid response to the wish expressed at its 17th Session for quick action to be taken jointly by the Organizations in preparing proposals for the Commission's consideration.
92. The Delegation of India expressed its view that limits for radionuclides contamination should take into account factors such as national food consumption habits, nutritional status, and the difficulties of analytical determination of the level of contamination especially in developing countries. The Delegation also stated that the basic level of intervention, 5 milliSieverts, was high and preferred the use of a basic level of 1 milliSievert. In addition, the Delegation stated that the levels used should take into account trade in skim milk powder, butter and butter oil, cereals and meat products individually; provide for additivity between all isotopes; and that the isotopes in each class should be listed individually. The Delegation also stated that limits should be established for normal years as well.
93. The Delegation of Singapore stated that the levels seemed to have been derived exclusively in the interest of international trade, and that health and safety seemed not to be taken into account. The delegation added that the basis of 5 milliSieverts for calculation was too high, and that a risk of 10-4 was not acceptable.
94. The opinions of these two Delegations were shared by the Delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia and Thailand.
95. The Delegations of Belgium, Canada, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland generally supported the proposals contained in the document. Several of these Delegations expressed the view that there was a need to define the emergency period during which the guideline levels would apply and also to establish levels for non-accident situations, a view which was also shared by some of the delegations which did not support the proposals. The Delegations of Finland, Sweden and Norway expressed minor reservations concerning the establishment of separate levels of milk and infant foods. The Delegation of Belgium noted that the levels proposed were compatible with similar levels proposed for adoption by the EEC. The Delegation of Canada drew attention to its written comments which it stated could be useful as a technical annex to aid in the interpretation of the proposed levels. The Delegation of Austria, although supporting the basis of 5 milliSieverts, stated that it could not support the levels derived from this basis.
96. The Delegation of Japan, whilst not opposing the adoption of the proposals, drew attention to the procedures followed in that country, whereby the dose from radionuclide contamination from food was calculated on the basis of a distribution of one-third of the total reference dose taking into consideration other sources of contamination such as air and water.
97. The Observer of the EEC drew attention to the maximum limits established within the framework of the EEC for foods and animal feeds for use after a nuclear accident or in any other radiological emergency. The emergency limits which would be adopted by the EEC would remain in effect for a certain period following an accident, during which time the situation could be evaluated more completely. Notwithstanding this approach, the permitted levels adopted by the EEC following the Chernobyl accident would remain in force until the end of 1989.
98. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants provided the Commission with a summary of the discussion which took place at the Committee's 21st session, and stated that the proposals recommended by the Committee represented a carefully agreed compromise between the many points of view of the delegation present.
99. The Delegation of the United Kingdom expressed its dissatisfaction with the proposed levels, stating that they were unrealistically conservative. It further stated that it would prefer higher levels similar to those under consideration by the EEC.
100. In reply to many of the questions raised, the representative of WHO (Dr. Waight) stated that the proposed levels were indeed based on health and safety criteria, but represented the use of very conservative assumptions to assure their acceptability for use in international trade. He stated that intervention levels calculated on a public health basis alone would be many times higher. Referring to the question of additivity, Dr. Waight stressed that the very conservative approach used meant that the principle of additivity was insignificant, and that using these levels, the average dose to the population was likely to be less than 0.1 milliSievert.
101. The Secretariat noted that the guideline level had not been defined, and proposed that the following definition, taken with appropriate amendments from Appendix X of ALINORM 89/12A should be adopted by the Commission as an interim measure for the purpose of these Guideline levels:
“Guideline levels are intended for use in regulating foods moving in international trade. When the Guideline levels are exceeded, governments should decide whether and under what circumstances, the food should be distributed within their territory or jurisdiction.”
Status of the Proposed Guideline Levels
102. The Commission noted the views of the delegations which were not in favour of adopting the proposed Guideline levels, but nevertheless adopted them as Codex Guideline Levels for Use in International Trade following Accidental Nuclear Contamination of Food and noted that the Guideline levels would remain applicable for one year following a nuclear accident. It also adopted, as an interim measure, the definition of Guideline level as proposed by the Secretariat. Noting the views of the 36th Session of the Executive Committee, it also agreed that the question of applying dilution factors and the treatment of minor dietary components (ALINORM 89/11, paras. 29 and 30) should remain under review. It also recommended the relevant international organizations (FAO, WHO, IAEA) to continue to work together in developing methods of sampling and analysis which would meet the requirements of food control authorities, especially in developing countries. Finally, the Commission congratulated FAO and WHO for their efforts in preparing the detailed proposals put before it.
ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW REGIONAL CODEX COORDINATING COMMITTEE(Agenda Item 13)
103. The Commission had before it the three basic documents pertinent to this item: ALINORM 89/37, a formal paper describing the background to the establishment of the new Coordinating Committee for North America and South West Pacific, ALINORM 89/33, the report of the Codex Committee on General Principles, and ALINORM 89/4 (Annex II), the report of the 36th Session of the Executive Committee.
104. At the 17th Session of the Commission, the Delegation of the USA had proposed that consideration be given to establishing a new Codex Coordinating Committee for North America. The matter was referred to the 35th Session of the Executive Committee which proposed that all countries not currently members of one of the established Coordinating Committees should be contacted to determine whether or not a single new Coordinating Committee for the Regions of North America and the South-West Pacific should be established, and that an administrative and financial statement should be prepared by the Secretariat on the basis of the replies received. The Secretariat informed the Commission that four of the six countries of the region had replied positively to the proposed establishment of the new Coordinating Committee. The new Committee would cause no administrative or financial problems since the hosting country would cover organizational expenses; staff inputs and travel expenses should be equal to those for other coordinating committees, and publication costs would be minimal since working documents would be prepared only in one language. The Secretariat then referred to the general harmonized terms of reference for the Codex Committee on General Principles and suggested that the terms of reference of the new Committee be discussed under the corresponding agenda item 20.
105. The Delegations of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Indonesia welcomed the idea of the Coordinating Committee for North America and the South West Pacific.
106. The Commission decided to establish a new Codex Coordinating Committee for North America and the South West Pacific. The Australian Delegation expressed its appreciation of the support given to the new Committee which would increase the interest in the region for the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and would help the food trade. The Delegation proposed Dr. Lester Crawford, USA, as the Coordinator of the newly created Committee. Dr. Crawford expressed his gratitude for the nomination and his willingness to take up the assignment. The Delegation of New Zealand thanked the Commission for the endorsement of the new Committee which would bring together far flung countries but which have many common interests. The Canadian Delegation noted that the new Committee would be very useful in promoting and coordinating Codex work in the region.
107. The Commission decided to appoint Dr. Lestor Crawford (USA) as the Coordinator of the newly established Committee and asked him to submit, in consultation with countries present at the session a proposal for the place and date of the first session of the Committee.
FORMAL ADOPTION BY THE COMMISSION OF REPORTS OF ITS SUBSIDIARY BODIES (Agenda Item 14)
108. In introducing the working paper for this item, ALINORM 89/38, and the Report of the 35th Session of the Executive Committee (ALINORM 89/3), the Secretariat summarized the status of reporting and adoption of documents of the subsidiary bodies of the CAC. This problem was raised by the Delegations of Norway and the United Kingdom during the discussion of future work at the 17th Session of the Commission. The Executive Committee at its 35th Session noted that in addition to standards and codes of practice, the subsidiary bodies of the Commission had prepared other documents, such as guidelines which were not elaborated through the Codex step procedures. The Executive Committee felt that close scrutiny was necessary on these types of texts (ALINORM 89/3 para. 31–34). It also recommended that decisions and recommendations of these bodies addressed to FAO, WHO and other organizations should be reviewed and endorsed by the Commission.
109. The Commission was asked to endorse the recommendations of the Executive Committee that:
guidelines and other text of a non-mandatory nature should be elaborated through the Step Procedure unless there is justification for not doing so;
all such work should be approved by the Commission (or in the interim by the Executive Committee) at an early stage;
all conclusions or recommendations which Committees may wish to address to FAO, WHO or member governments should be subject to the Commission's review and endorsement.
110. The Delegation of Norway expressed its great satisfaction with the paper presented to the Commission, and stated its support for the recommendations of the Executive Committee on that subject. The Delegation of the United Kingdom congratulated the Secretariat and the Executive Committee on the very satisfactory solution presented to the Commission and expressed its full support to the recommendations of the Executive Committee.
111. The Commission endorsed the recommendations of the Executive Committee on that subject.
IMPLICATIONS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY ON INTERNATIONAL FOOD STANDARDS AND CODES OF PRACTICE (Agenda Item 15)
112. The Commission had for its consideration document ALINORM 89/39, a paper prepared on this topic for the Secretariat by Drs. J. Maryanski and D. Berkowitz (USA). The paper had been prepared at the request of the 35th Session of the Executive Committee (ALINORM 89/3, paras. 59, 60) and had been briefly discussed at the Executive Committee's 36th Session.
113. Dr. Maryanski introduced the paper, and drew attention to its principal conclusions: that safety evaluations of foods prepared with the aid of biotechnology should concentrate on the finished product rather than on the process used; that changes to existing foods through the use of transgenic techniques were likely to be incremental and that therefore the safety assessment should focus on the inserted traits and their stability in the food product rather than on the product per se; and finally, that the applications of new biotechnology could be evaluated under the existing Codex system as are other foods, food additives, food ingredients, pesticide and veterinary drug residues and animal feeds.
114. Many delegations expressed their appreciation of the document and its timely presentation to the Commission. The document was considered to provide an excellent basis for future debate in this area. The Delegation of Belgium, supported by that of the United Kingdom, however, drew attention to the problem of the assessment of novel foods, which were described as foods not necessarily produced by biotechnology but which could also be produced through these processes. The Delegation of Switzerland drew attention to a contradiction in the paper which left a doubt as to whether only the final product or also the process of its elaboration should be subject to evaluation. In discussing novel foods, these delegations stated that there should be a separate type of evaluation in which a novel food should be examined to determine whether or not it was appropriate for food use, and whether or not it should be considered as a food ingredient or an additive. There were already established procedures for the evaluation of food additives by JECFA, and parallel arrangements for novel foods and novel food ingredients might be required.
115. These delegations believed that an ad hoc evaluation procedure may be justified, on a case-by-case basis, to determine the type of evaluation which would be necessary. It was also noted that nutritional evaluation should be identified in the document as an important aspect of the safety assessment. The Delegation of Denmark pointed out that, in the case of plant products, consideration should be given not only to the inserted genes but also to the interaction between the product of the inserted gene and the metabolism of the plant.
116. The Delegation of Sweden also drew attention to an area of application which had not been included in the paper, namely, the use of biotechnology in methods of analysis of foodstuffs. Several other delegations, including that of Iraq, drew attention to the use of biotechnologies in the preparation of feedstuffs, such as single cell protein and related foods. The Commission agreed with the points raised by the paper and by the comments of delegates, indicated that further study of the paper and its implications was needed and that the paper should be circulated to Codex Contact Points for comment. The paper should also be brought to the attention of JECFA and JMPR for their comments. These comments would be considered by the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants and the Codex Committees on Pesticide Residues and Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods as appropriate. The Commission also agreed that the matter should be retained on the agenda of its next session.
117. The Commission was informed that WHO, together with FAO, were considering the convening of a Joint Expert Consultation on the Safety Evaluation of Foods Prepared through Biotechnological Techniques. A planning meeting to prepare for this expert consultation would be held in Washington, D.C., towards the end of 1989. Several delegations welcomed this approach and requested that the report of the expert consultation would also be sent to governments for comments and that these comments should also be referred to the appropriate Codex committees. The Delegation of France informed the Commission that there was available a series of documents in French on terminology used in relation to biotechnology which would be useful for specialists in the field and also for those persons wishing to understand or to translate documents on this subject.
118. In conclusion, the Delegation of Belgium expressed its disappointment that novel foods had been excluded from the topic under discussion as such foods were becoming ever more important.
CODEX COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR AFRICA (Agenda Item 16)
119. The Commission had before it the Report of the Eighth Session of the Coordinating Committee for Africa (ALINORM 89/28) which had been held in Cairo, Egypt, from 29 November to 3 December 1988.
120. The report was introduced by Mr. Tawfic Zaglool Mourad Aballa, Coordinator for Africa, drawing attention to all matters discussed at the Session and to the status of work of the Committee. Mr. Zaglool thanked the FAO and the WHO personnel attending the Session for their assistance.
121. The Commission noted that the section on hygiene included in these standards differed from that endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene and agreed that the endorsed text be inserted in the draft standards. It also agreed that the methods of analysis and sampling which were still pending endorsement should be referred to the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling. Concerning the method for the analysis of crude fibre, the Commission noted that the ISO method proposed was intended for verifying a quality criterion (e.g. presence of husk and other such matter) and was not related to the issue of “dietary fibre” discussed by the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses.
122. The Commission adopted the two standards at Step 8 of the procedure as Codex Regional African Standards.
123. The Commission noted that the situation in respect of the section on hygiene was the same as with the standards for pearl millet grains and flour, and also noted that some sections still required endorsement by the appropriate committees.
124. Regarding grated desiccated coconut, the Commission was informed that trade outside Africa in this commodity was significant. Several delegations representing importing and exporting countries expressed the opinion that the standard be further elaborated as a world-wide standard.
125. The Commission advanced the two draft standards to Step 6 of the procedure. However, the Commission agreed that the Draft Standard for Grated Desiccated Coconut should be elaborated as a world-wide standard by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables in accordance with the procedure for developing standards where Codex Committees had adjourned sine die.
Amendment of the Codex African Regional Standard for Gari
126. The Commission noted that the Coordinating Committee had (a) recommended a practical sampling procedure based on the Codex Sampling Instructions, to replace the methods included in the Standard; (b) recommended the deletion of the method for the determination of extraneous vegetable matter (EVM), since the provision in the standard did not specify a limit for this defect, and (c) revised the section on labelling on the basis of the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods.
127. The Commission adopted the proposed changes to the section on sampling and labelling as consequential changes reflecting the corresponding sections in the standards for pearl millet grain and flour adopted at the current session. It also agreed to delete the method for EVM.
Collaboration between the African Regional Organization for Standardization (ARSO) and Codex
128. The Commission was informed that the Coordinating Committee had discussed ways of cooperation between ARSO and Codex in order to promote food standards work in Africa and avoid duplication of work. The Secretariat had been requested to arrange a bilateral meeting in order to discuss and resolve the question of collaboration.
129. The Chief of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme informed the Commission of the outcome of such a meeting while attending the ARSO conference in Nairobi held during early 1989. He expressed the opinion that the continued activities of ARSO in the field of food standards could cause difficulties in the future. However, at the present stage, ARSO standards reflected Codex standards and differed only in format. ARSO had been provided with full Codex documentation and the Codex Secretariat was awaiting a response from ARSO concerning the question of collaboration, including collaboration in the field of training of technical personnel in food inspection and control.
Appointment of Coordinator for Africa
130. The Commission re-appointed Mr. Tawfic Zaglool Mourad Aballa of Egypt as Coordinator for Africa to serve from the end of the 18th to the end of the 19th Session. The Delegation of Egypt indicated that Egypt would be willing to host the 9th Session of the Coordinating Committee for Africa.
CODEX COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR ASIA (Agenda Item 17)
131. The Commission had before it the Report of the Sixth Session of the Coordinating Committee for Asia (ALINORM 89/15) which had been held in Denpasar, Indonesia, from 26 January - 1 February 1988.
132. The Report was introduced by Professor F.G. Winarno from Indonesia, who had chaired the Session. He emphasized the interest of the countries of the Codex Region of Asia, in the work of the Coordinating Committee and reviewed the topics which had been dealt with by the Committee.
133. The main topics discussed by the Coordinating Committee for Asia were: (a) review of acceptances of Codex Standards, (b) status of the existing food control infrastructures in the region, and ways and means to develop a strategy for increasing awareness at a high level of the need to strengthen the infrastructures in the interest of increasing food availability and promoting food exports, (c) regional food export and import, certification and inspection programmes, (d) the role of the Committee in promoting the integration of food safety into primmary health care delivery systems, (e) report on Codex activities generally and on those aspects of Codex work of particular interest to the region, including work in the area of international standards for coffee and pesticide residues in food.
134. The Commission noted that the Committee had requested the Codex Secretariat to gather the views of the countries in the Codex Region of Asia on benefits, trade implications and problems accrued by them through acceptance of Codex Standards by a circular letter, and prepare a document containing such views as well as views of the Secretariat for discussion at its next session. The Commission also noted that the Committee unanimously expressed its appreciation and continued support for the training network concept and recommended that such projects containing the training concept be extended and expanded so that more people could be trained.
135. The Committee considered that the current Joint FAO/WHO activities in the field of food safety and food control were very important for the countries of the region, and proposed that the various proposals for integrating food safety into primary health care delivery systems should be acted upon. The Committee endorsed the concept that in designing export/import food control programmes, countries should utilize, where possible, existing institutions and personnel so as to reduce financial burdens.
Other matters arising from the report of the 6th Session of the Committee
i) International Standards for Coffee
136. The Commission was informed of the discussions on the subject at the 6th Session of the Codex Coordinating Committee for Asia (ALINORM 89/15, paras. 200-203). It noted that the proposals of the Coordinating Committee were considered by the 35th and 36th Sessions of the Executive Committee. The 35th Session of the Executive Committee expressed the view that, since standards for coffee were currently being handled by ISO, it was essential to clarify that there would be no duplication of effort (ALINORM 89/3, para. 39). The 36th Session of the Executive Committee was of the opinion that the elaboration of standards for coffee and coffee products met the criteria of the Commission and that the Commission should consider either (i) the establishment of a Codex Commodity Committee which could be entrusted with the work on elaboration of standards for coffee and coffee products, or (ii) assigning the work to an existing subsidiary body.
137. The Commission noted that ISO had recognized the need for the establishment of an internationally acceptable system for defect scoring and had agreed to continue the standardization work in this respect in reference to green coffee and green decaffeinated coffee, keeping it informed of the progress, and through its Technical Committee ISO TC/34, cooperate with the Commission on work related to standardization of coffee and coffee products.
138. The Delegation of Switzerland informed the Commission that its Government would be prepared to host a Codex Committee on Coffee and Coffee Products if agreement was reached by the Commission to set up such a committee.
139. The proposal for elaboration of standards for coffee and coffee products was supported by the delegations of Cameroun and Brazil. Other delegations, however, expressed the view that elaboration of world-wide standards for coffee and coffee products was not necessary since the preparation and consumption of coffee differed significantly with the geographic region and that the International Coffee Organization and related organizations might be active in the standardization of coffee and coffee products.
140. The Commission asked the Secretariat to prepare a paper on current status of international standards for coffee for discussion at its next session, and to send a circular letter to governments asking their opinion on the need for the elaboration of standards for coffee and coffee products.
ii) Amendments to the Standards for Palm Oil and Palm Kernel Oil
141. The Commission discussed this under Agenda Item 36 (see paras. 519–520).
iii) Elaboration of Standards for Palm Olein and Palm Steerin
142. The Commission discussed this under Agenda Item 36 (see paras. 521–522).
Estimation and Identification of Individual Fats in Mixtures of Oils
143. The Delegation of Egypt drew the attention of the Committee to its country's urgent need to develop Codex methods for estimation and identification of individual oils or fats in mixtures of oils. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling and the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils had considered this matter in detail, but that they had not been able to identify methods of analysis for this purpose. It, however, expressed the view that the matter was important and should be pursued.
Code of Practice for Street Foods
144. The Delegation of China stated that a Code of Practice for Street Foods applicable to the Asian Region should be elaborated. The Commission noted that the 36th Session of the Executive Committee recommended that the core elements presently under elaboration in the different regional Codes of Practice for Street Foods should be examined by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene and that individual Coordinating Committees should add to this core material the information that was specifically relevant to regional practice. It also noted that elaboration of Code of Practice for Street Foods will be an agenda item for consideration by the next session of the Coordinating Committee for Asia.
Appointment of Coordinator for Asia
145. The Commission was informed that the Coordinating Committee for Asia had unanimously nominated Dr. Pakdee Pothisiri (Thailand) for appointment as Coordinator for Asia by the Commission at its 18th Session, and that this nomination had the support of the Thai authorities.
146. In accordance with Rule II.4(b) of the rules of procedure of the Commission and on the unanimous proposal of the Coordinating Committee for Asia, the Commission appointed Dr. Pakdee Pothisiri (Thailand) as Coordinator for Asia from the end of the 18th Session to the end of the 19th Session of the Commission.
147. The Commission was informed by the Delegation of Thailand, that the Government of Thailand had officially agreed to host the Seventh Session of the Coordinating Committee for Asia in Chiangmai, Thailand, in February 1990.
