JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME
1. The Twentieth Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was held at the International Conference Centre, Geneva, Switzerland from 28 June to 7 July 1993. The Session was attended by 259 participants, including official representatives and observers from 70 countries and observers from 27 international governmental and non-governmental organizations. See Appendix 1 for the list of participants.
2. The Commission was presided over by its Chairman, F.G. Winarno (Indonesia), and for certain items of its agenda by two of its Vice-Chairmen, John Race (Norway) and Pakdee Pothisiri (Thailand). The Secretary of the Commission was R.J. Dawson, assisted by the Joint Session Secretaries A.W. Randell and F.Käferstein.
3. The Session was opened by Dr. F. Antezana, Assistant Director-General, on behalf of the Director-General of WHO, Dr. H. Nakajima, and Mr. John R. Lupien, Director, Food Policy and Nutrition Division on behalf of the Director-General of FAO, Mr. Edouard Saouma. The texts of the opening addresses and the Chairman's reply are contained in Appendix 2 to this report.
ADOPTION OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA AND TIMETABLE
(Agenda Item 1)
4. The Commission adopted the Provisional Agenda ALINORM 93/1, supplemented by ALINORM 93/1-Addendum 1, as the Agenda for the Session. On the recommendation of the Fortieth Session of the Commission's Executive Committee it was agreed to discuss the following matters under Item 43 Other Business:
The need for more effective mechanisms to distribute Codex documents in developing countries (ALINORM 93/4, paras. 33–37), and
Press participation at Codex sessions (ALINORM 93/4, paras. 38–39).
5. The Commission also agreed to discuss a report on the progress made by the Steering Committee of the Joint FAO/WHO Committee on Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products under “Other Business” if time allowed.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS OF THE COMMISSION (Agenda Item 4)
6. During the Session the Commission re-elected F.G. Winarno (Indonesia) as its Chairman to serve from the end of the Twentieth Session to the end of the Twenty-First Session. The Commission also elected D. Gascoine (Australia), and re-elected Pakdee Pothisiri (Thailand) and J. Race (Norway), as Vice-Chairmen of the Commission for the same period.
Appointment of Regional Coordinators
7. The following persons were appointed as Regional Coordinators for:
| Africa | Joseph Ahmadu Abalaka (Nigeria) |
| Asia | Dai Yin (China) |
| Europe | Stuart Slorach (Sweden) |
| Latin America and the Caribbean | Carlos Alberto Ferreira Guimarães (Brazil) |
| North America and the South-West Pacific | Katherine Gourlie (Canada) |
8. In introducing the Reports of the 39th and 40th Sessions of the Executive Committee, ALINORM 93/3 and 93/4 (CRD) respectively, the Chairman indicated that all items dealt with by the Executive Committee would be dealt with by the Commission under the various items of its agenda, or had been dealt with by Codex Committees following the Executive Committee's 39th Session.
MEMBERSHIP OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION
(Agenda Item 3)
9. The Secretary of the Commission reported that the Membership of the Commission currently stood at 144 Member countries. Since the Commission's Nineteenth Session the following countries had become Members: Belize; Estonia; Federated States of Micronesia; Lithuania; Mongolia; Solvenia. The Commission noted that Czechoslovakia had ceased to be a Member of the Commission. The Commission invited FAO and WHO to continue their efforts to ensure that all eligible countries become Members of the Commission.
10. The Commission had before it document ALINORM 93/5 when discussing this Agenda Item, which summarized acceptances notified by countries since its 19th Session. It was noted that Cuba had notified Acceptance with Specified Deviations for some Codex standards on milk and milk products and that about 10 percent of Codex member countries had notified acceptances under the revised procedures applying to Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides.
11. Some delegations noted that acceptance of Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for pesticides in food required an appreciation of the data on which conditions of Good Agricultural Practices were evaluated, and that countries could not always accept MRLs which were based on criteria for good agricultural practice which did not take into account environmental and other similar considerations.
12. The Delegation of China informed the Commission that several Codex MRLs had been accepted under the form of full acceptance and that future notifications would be sent to the Codex secretariat. The Delegation also emphasized the importance for Codex to endorse uniform detection methods for pesticides to control commodities moving in international trade.
13. The Observer from the EEC pointed out that the Community was still working to define the appropriate procedure to accept Codex Standards. The Observer also suggested that clarification needed to be provided by the Codex Committee on General Principles on the status of acceptance of Codex standards in view of the application of the anticipated GATT agreements on sanitary and phytosanitary measures and on technical barriers to trade.
14. The Commission called for more countries to make positive statements concerning the acceptance, adoption and use of Codex Standards in their countries. It noted that the new form of acceptance “free distribution” (see Agenda Item 15(b), paras. 86–88 below) would allow for more positive statements of acceptance when the Commission meets at its next Session. The Commission invited the Secretariat to encourage countries, especially the industrialized importing countries, to make positive replies under this new form of acceptance in time for the 21st Session of the Commission.
REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL SITUATION OF THE JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME FOR 1992/93 AND 1994/95 (Agenda Item 6)
15. The Secretary of the Codex Alimentarius Commission presented ALINORM 93/6 containing a report on the final accounts of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme for 1990/91, the approved budget for the biennium 1992/93, and the budget proposed by FAO and WHO for the biennium 1994/95. The Commission noted that in the biennium 1990/91 the Programme started with a small surplus and finished with a small deficit which had been carried forward into the current biennium. It also noted that there had been a reduction in the basic budget for the Programme for 1992/93 due to an overall reduction in appropriations for the FAO Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium. The reduction was about 8% of the total. The budget being proposed for 1994/95 was based on the full budget for 1992/93 without this budget cut being applied.
16. The Commission noted that apart from the reduction applied to the 1992/93 budget, the budget of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme had remained constant in real terms since 1974 when it had been incorporated into the Regular Budgets of its parent organizations on the basis of 75:25 per cent cost-sharing between FAO and WHO respectively. Supplementary contributions from FAO since 1974, currently accounting for approximately US$1.5 million covering mainly the costs of documentation, had meant that FAO had assumed approximately 82% of the Programme's costs. The Commission was pleased to acknowledge the direct support provided by Host Governments of Codex Committees. It was estimated that this support represented an amount equivalent to approximately 17% of the Commission's total budget.
17. The Commission expressed concern that reductions in the Codex budget would have negative consequences for the Commission's work, especially at a time when it was accelerating its work programme to meet the requirements of the post-Uruguay Round. It nevertheless expressed its appreciation of the continued support given to the Commission's work by the Directors-General of FAO and WHO, and of the priority which the parent organizations had accorded the Programme in periods of general financial difficulty.
18. Noting the continued financial constraints facing FAO and WHO and many Member governments, the Commission requested the Secretariat to take steps as appropriate to reduce a number of direct costs to the Programme's budget, including especially the costs of documentation. The Commission supported the idea proposed by the Executive Committee (ALINORM 93/4, para. 7) that an analysis should be made of the costs of holding Commission sessions in Geneva, and whether consideration might be given to holding meetings in the immediate future only in Rome.
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF FAO AND WHO RELATIVE TO THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION (Agenda Item 7)
A. Report of Joint FAO/WHO Activities
International Conference on Nutrition (ICN)
19. The Commission was informed of the outcome of the International Conference on Nutrition (ICN) held in Rome, 5 to 11 December 1992 under the joint sponsorship of FAO and WHO. The ICN adopted unanimously the World Declaration and Plan of Action for Nutrition. The World Declaration sets out the determination of the international community to eliminate hunger and reduce all forms of malnutrition within the decade. To achieve these goals the Plan of Action sets out overall objectives and policy guidelines and identifies specific areas for action which include: improving household food security; protecting consumers through improved food quality and safety; preventing and managing infectious diseases; promoting breast-feeding; caring for the socio- economically deprived and nutritionally vulnerable; preventing and controlling specific micronutrient deficiencies; promoting appropriate diets and healthy lifestyles; assessing, analyzing and monitoring the nutrition situation and incorporating nutritional objectives, considerations and components into development programmes and policies. By adopting the World Declaration and Plan of Action, countries committed themselves to develop or to revise national plans of action not later than end of 1994, outlining specific actions to be taken.
20. The Commission noted in particular that the Plan of Action calls upon member governments and other concerned parties to “adopt and strengthen comprehensive measures to cover the control of food quality and safety with a view to protecting the health of consumers and producers and ensuring sound production, good manufacturing and fair trade practices”. It also states that “food regulations should fully take into account the recommended international standards of the Codex Alimentarius Commission”. Some delegations provided information on activities in their countries to implement the Plan of Action.
21. The Commission was further informed of the steps taken by FAO and WHO to assist developing member countries to implement the ICN Plan of Action, particularly as regards the formulation or revision of their respective national Plans of Action for Nutrition. It took note of the need of both FAO and WHO for additional extrabudgetary resources to enable them to respond positively to the need for technical assistance by developing countries in the implementation of the Plan of Action.
22. The Commission was informed that three JECFA meetings and two meetings of the JMPR had been held since the 19th Session of the Commission. Two of the JECFA meetings (the Thirtyninth held in Rome, February 1992 and Forty-first held in Geneva in February 1993) were devoted to the toxicological evaluation of certain food additives, contaminants and naturally-occurring toxicants. The Fortieth meeting, held in Geneva in June 1992, had evaluated residues of certain veterinary drugs. In regard to JMPR, two meetings were held in September 1991 and September 1992, which evaluated toxicological, residue and analytical data for several new pesticides and reevaluated data supporting pesticides previously considered by JMPR. MRLs were estimated on a large number of food commodities.
International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI)
23. The Commission was informed that the ICGFI, created by FAO, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and WHO in 1984, had a current membership of 39 countries. A review of progress, achievements and future work of the ICGFI in support of the implementation and acceptance of food irradiation by Member countries was briefly reported to the Commission.
Food Quality, Safety and Tourism
24. The Commission noted that tourism was the third largest global industry and was an important foreign revenue earner for both developing and industrialized countries. FAO and WHO had developed collaborative activities with the World Tourism Organization (WTO) for the improvement of food quality and safety in the tourism sector. International conferences on tourism and food safety had been convened for francophone Africa in Tunisia in 1992 and for Latin America and the Caribbean in Mexico in 1993. FAO had collaborated with WTO in organizing a training course for hotel food service personnel in Bahrain in 1993. Additional conferences were scheduled for Malaysia in 1994 and Sri Lanka in 1995.
25. The Commission was further informed of the Joint activities carried out by FAO and PAHO to assist member countries of the Latin American and Caribbean region in their efforts to prevent and control the spread of the cholera epidemic. These activities included the implementation of three regional training courses on the microbiological analysis of foods forVibrio cholera and of at least four regional seminars and workshops on various aspects related to the cholera epidemic.
26. The Commission was informed of the priority given by FAO to activities in the field of food quality control and consumer protection and of the actions taken recently by FAO to further strengthen these activities as a follow-up to the International Conference on Nutrition and to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. These actions include (i) a proposed budget increase of US$774,000 for Food Control and Consumer Protection in FAO's Programme of Work and Budget 1994–95; (ii) the establishment as of 1994, of a country-oriented Special Action Programme on Nutrition and Food Quality Assurance with the aim of bringing together food and nutrition-related activities to ensure access for all to adequate supplies of good quality and safe foods at affordable prices, thus requiring consideration of food quality through the entire food chain and (iii) the consideration being given by FAO and IAEA to establish a FAO/IAEA Training and Reference Service for Food Quality and Pesticides at the IAEA facilities in Siebersdorf, Austria.
27. The Commission noted with appreciation the extensive technical assistance provided by FAO to member countries to strengthen their food control infrastructures and activities. This assistance was provided under the FAO regular programme and through more than 50 field projects covering all regions. Nineteen of these projects were in Latin America and the Caribbean region, 15 in Africa, 10 in Asia, 6 in Europe and 4 in the Near East. The total budget of these projects exceeded US$ 12 million.
28. The Commission further noted the priority given to the development of human resources through training courses and workshops held at national and regional levels on management of food control programmes, food analysis, food additives and contaminants, food inspection and import and export certification and control programmes. The Commission appreciated in particular, the priority given by FAO to the Africa region in the field of training.
29. Concerning food contaminants, the Commission was informed of FAO's assistance programme to member countries to support their efforts to control and monitor the levels of mycotoxins, pesticide residues, heavy metals and other environmental contaminants in food. It was apprised in particular, of the assistance provided to member countries in Latin America and the Caribbean Region to control and prevent the spread of the cholera epidemic. This assistance focused on the application of good manufacturing practices at industry level and of hygienic practices in the handling and preparation of foods, especially street foods. The Commission was informed of the recent convening by FAO of two expert consultations; one on “Sampling Plans for Aflatoxin Analysis in Food” and the other on “Integration of Consumer Interests in Food Control”.
30. The Commission was informed that WHO considered the safety of weaning food as one of its priorities as some 1500 million episodes of diarrhoea occurring annually in children under five years of age not only caused some 3.5 million children to die but also reduced the nutritional status among the survivors. A review article had been published in the WHO Bulletin and a fact sheet was issued within WHO's new series “Facts about Infant Feeding”. A WHO consultation on weaning food safety had been scheduled for 1994 and national projects in three developing countries were under preparation.
31. A WHO consultation on Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) System training had been held in March 1993 and had issued advice in a document entitled “Training Considerations for the Application of the HACCP System to Food Processing and Manufacturing”. WHO was also in the process of preparing model training material for the training of both government and industry officials in HACCP. First training courses had been held in China and the Philippines and another was scheduled for the Republic of Korea.
32. It was reported that, as a follow-up to the 1990 Joint FAO/WHO Consultation on Strategies for Assessing the Safety of Foods Produced by Biotechnology, WHO was planning to convene in September 1993 a Workshop on health aspects of the use of marker genes in plants and possibilities for their use in identification and control of genetically modified plants. It was anticipated that a further joint FAO/WHO consultation on food biotechnology would be convened in 1994.
33. In relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), WHO had organized two consultations (November 1991 and May 1993) to discuss the possible implications for public and animal health of spongiform encephalopathies, especially BSE, with regard to the use of animal tissues as animal feed and human food as well as in the preparation of medicinal and other products for human use. The reports of the two Consultations had been published by WHO (documents WHO/CDS/VPH.92.104 and 93.119). Regarding food-borne transmission of the BSE agent, it was reported that studies on scrapie suggested that the risk, if any, of infection of humans would only arise from exposure to certain tissues of infected animals. Recent results indicated that infectivity in BSE infected animals was more restricted than in the scrapie model. Therefore in countries where there is a high incidence of the disease, prohibiting the “specified offals” (i.e. brain, spinal cord, tonsils, thymus, spleen and intestines - from duodenum to rectum inclusive) from cattle over 6 months of age, from entering the human or animal food chain should suffice to minimize the risk of exposure to the BSE agent.
34. The Commission was informed that WHO had provided guidance in its Weekly Epidemiological Record on the vaccination of food handlers against hepatitis A and on food safety measures for eggs and foods containing eggs (Nos. 5 and 22 of 1993, respectively).
35. In the ensuing discussions, the Delegation of Sweden informed the Commission that the National Veterinary Institute of Sweden organized, under the auspices of WHO, an International Course on Salmonella Control in Animal Production and Products in Sweden in August 1993.
36. The Delegation of Nigeria expressed the opinion that Africa did not receive adequate attention from FAO and WHO in the face of the serious health and food problems prevailing in the continent. Representatives of both FAO and WHO informed that Africa was a priority region for both Organizations but that some countries did not consider food quality, safety and food control as priority problems. They indicated that FAO and WHO could only provide technical assistance if they were requested to do so. In the case of WHO, it was also noted that it was essential that countries set aside sufficient funds from their national WHO budget for technical cooperation activities in the field of food safety and nutrition.
37. The Commission had before it document ALINORM 93/8 when discussing this Agenda Item, which summarized activities of interest arising from the International Organization for Standardization and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. An oral report was also presented by the Observer from the African Regional Organization for Standardization.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
38. The Observer from the ISO highlighted the work carried out by Technical Committee ISO/TC 34, “Agricultural Food Products”, which is comprised of fourteen ISO Sub-Committees. The Observer noted that the standards developed by ISO/TC 34 and its Sub-Committees cover various aspects, such as terminology, methods of analysis and sampling and product specifications for those food products which are not on the programme of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its Subsidiary Bodies. The Observer of the ISO stated that in addition to the existing collaboration on technical matters between the relevant ISO and Codex Committees, close contacts exist between the Codex and ISO Secretariats so that the risk of duplication of effort between the two organizations is avoided.
39. In highlighting the activities of other ISO Committees whose activities are of interest to the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the Observer of the ISO noted ISO 10470-1993 “Green Coffee-Defect Reference Chart” had been published on 1 June 1993. It was also noted that a selective list of ISO Standards were available for the information of delegates at the Commission meeting.
40. The Commission agreed that ISO activities related to the establishment of methods of analysis and sampling would be discussed under Agenda Item 26, Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
41. The Observer of the UNECE noted and agreed with the decision of the Commission to defer discussions concerning the UNECE until Agenda Item 30 (Codex Committee on Tropical Fresh Fruits and Vegetables), as these UNECE activities were of a general nature which were closely linked and applicable to other Codex Committees.
African Regional Organization for Standardization (ARSO)
42. The Observer of the ARSO, while welcoming the close collaboration between Codex and the ARSO to avoid duplication of work and the establishment of trade-distorting regional standards, stated that most items of interest from the ARSO had been discussed by the Codex Coordinating Committee for Africa. Therefore, the Commission agreed that concerns of the African region related to food standardization, including the relationship between the Commission, ARSO and ISO, would be discussed under Agenda Item 16.
43. The Representative of the Secretariat of the GATT introduced document ALINORM 93/9, which contained a copy of Section L of the GATT Draft Final Act (MTN.TNC/W/FA) embodying the results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, as well as Section G concerning the Agreement (1991) on Technical Barriers to Trade. It was also reported that the GATT Secretariat had issued a background paper to assist the public in understanding the proposed GATT Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. The WHO Joint Session Secretary also informed the Commission that a paper concerning the relationship between Codex and GATT had been submitted to the 46th Session of the World Health Assembly in May 1993.
44. The Representative of GATT stated that the situation and status of these draft GATT Agreements had not changed since the last session of the Commission, as formal negotiations on these measures were suspended pending agreement on the full Uruguay Round, which was expected at the end of 1993. However, the Representative indicated that in view of the general acceptability and completeness of these proposed agreements, they probably would not be discussed further pending their anticipated implementation at the beginning of 1995.
45. The Commission, noting the importance of the GATT discussions, agreed to express its continued support for the objectives of the GATT Negotiations in relation to sanitary and phytosanitary measures and on technical barriers to trade.
46. The Commission had before it documents ALINORM 93/10, including Part I prepared by IOCU and Part II presenting government comments in reply to CL 1993/3-CAC (Brazil, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland) and CAC/LIM.5 containing additional government comments (Australia, Finland, United Kingdom).
47. The Secretariat recalled the recommendations of the FAO/WHO Conference on Food Standards, Chemicals in Food and Food Trade (March 1991), as endorsed by the 19th Session of the Commission, for the improvement of consumer participation in the work of Codex. It had been agreed that IOCU would prepare a discussion paper presenting an assessment of the progress achieved and the main issues to be addressed in this area for consideration by the present session of the Commission. It had also been agreed that governments would be requested to report on their national policies with regard to consumer participation. The Commission noted the discussions held at the 40th Session of the Executive Committee (ALINORM 93/4, paras. 13–17).
48. The Commission was informed that an FAO Expert Consultation on the Integration of Consumers Interests in Food Control, attended by representatives of national food control organizations, consumers and industry, had been held in Rome from 14–18 June 1993. It had considered the current state of consumer participation in developed and developing countries, and identified the major difficulties to the achievement of such integration. It was agreed however not to discuss the results of the consultation as the final report was not yet available and the report was not directed to the Commission.
49. While presenting the working paper, the Observer from IOCU highlighted some points commented upon by the 40th Session of the Executive Committee. Although the paper reflected the views only of IOCU, it was noted that IOCU had a very wide membership in 70 countries throughout the world. In this respect, the Observer indicated that criteria should be established to assess the representativity of consumers associations, as many small groups with sectorial interests existed and only associations with a wide basis representing the concerns of a majority of consumers should be recognized at the national and international level. Several delegations concurred with this proposal and pointed out that in some countries, the multiplicity of consumers groups made it difficult for official authorities to establish an effective cooperation with them and to identify the representatives that could best advise governments on consumer policy, even when national legislation provided for consumer participation. However, many delegations indicated that consumers were involved in the elaboration of national food legislation as well as in the preparation of Codex meetings and that such participation was established by legislation or similar instruments.
50. The Observer from IOCU recognized that progress had been made to involve consumers in developing countries, and that it was increasingly significant especially in Asia. He further expressed his support for press participation at Codex meetings, so as to improve the transparency of the proceedings.
51. The Observer reasserted the view of IOCU that the available resources of industry groups enabled them to participate more actively in the decision-making process, so that their interests were strongly represented, which was not the case of consumers' organizations and that efforts should therefore be made to reach a better balance of interests. He pointed out that the difficulties faced by consumers organizations essentially came from a lack of funding, which affected their representation at the international level, and suggested that assistance might be provided from international organizations or the industry. Many delegations however, objected to direct or indirect funding from industry as it was felt that this would affect negatively the independence of consumer organizations and pointed out the impracticability of administering such a levy. The FAO Legal Counsel pointed out that as regarded procedure according to Rule VII.5 the participation of and relations with international organizations were governed by the relevant provisions of the constitutions of FAO and WHO. Moreover, as regards funding, Rule XI.4 stipulated that costs of attendance at Codex meetings must be borne by participants and not by Codex, FAO or WHO.
52. There was general consensus on the fact that the improvement of consumer participation was primarily a national issue and should be addressed as such by governments. The Delegation of Singapore expressed the view that the official authorities in a country represented the interests of consumers as well as the global interest of their country. The Observer from IOCU however, indicated that there was still a need to build confidence between government agencies and consumers, as they did not feel they were adequately represented or that their interests were taken into account as they should.
53. The Observer from the EC informed the Commission that consumer participation was regarded as essential in the Community and that a Community-wide Committee included representatives of the consumers as well as other sectors of the economy. He also suggested that governments should consult with consumers' associations in the preparation of Codex meetings.
54. The Commission did not accept the proposal made by IOCU to participate in an observer capacity at the Executive Committee even though some Members took a more favourable approach. The WHO Legal Counsel indicated that the Executive Committee was defined as the executive organ of the Commission in Rule of Procedure III, that its composition was consequently strictly limited and no observers of any private interest group were admitted. He pointed out that were any such group allowed to participate, other organizations and countries might want to also participate. There was general consensus on this point, and it was agreed that the intergovernmental character of the Executive should be maintained and its current efficiency preserved.
55. In reply to a question on the integration of other interests such as environmental concerns or animal welfare into the proposed GATT Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the Observer from GATT informed the Commission that this issue had been discussed extensively during the negotiations on that Agreement, but that a majority of countries did not accept their inclusion, especially as no recognized international standards existed in this area. It was also felt that such considerations might create new barriers to trade and that they could be addressed more adequately in other specialized bodies, recognizing that the responsibility of Codex was to establish standards and related texts for food.
56. The Commission agreed on the necessity to continue working in close cooperation with IOCU and other consumer organizations as might be required, and recognizing that consumer participation should be addressed at the national level, invited governments to involve consumers more effectively in the decision-making process. The Commission agreed to the recommendation of the Executive Committee to have this matter discussed by regional coordinating committees, especially as the situation varied greatly from one region to another.
RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES USED BY THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION, AND ITS SUBSIDIARY AND ADVISORY BODIES (Agenda Item 11)
57. The Commission had before it ALINORM 93/37 for discussion. This item had been placed on the Agenda by the Executive Committee in response to the recommendations of the FAO/WHO Conference on Food Standards, Chemicals in Food and Food Trade held in March 1991. It was noted that the subject was strongly linked to the approach taken by the Uruguay Round for developing national and international standards for sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The paper was presented by a Consultant to the Secretariat Dr. Steve C. Hathaway (New Zealand).
58. The paper was prepared following consultation with the Secretariat; FAO and WHO; the Joint Secretaries of the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and Joint Meetings of the FAO Panel of Experts and the WHO Expert Group on Pesticide Residues (JMPR); and the Chairpersons of the Codex Committees on Food Additives and Contaminants, Pesticide Residues, Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods, Food Hygiene, and Meat Hygiene.
59. The paper described in detail the work of JECFA, JMPR and the relevant Codex Committees. It also described how this work would fit into a risk analysis framework. The paper documented several areas of Codex activity which did not conform to risk analysis principles but Dr. Hathaway noted that risk analysis was a relatively new applied science in the field of food safety and was itself continually evolving. There was, however, wide opportunity for Codex to improve its performance by adopting risk analysis principles and methodology.
60. The Consultant described the three main components of risk analysis: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. Determination of “risk assessment policy” was another essential part of the risk analysis process. Additionally, the Consultant introduced the Commission to three general models of risk analysis that had different ways of including these components.
61. Dr. Hathaway described JECFA and JMPR as forming a bridge between those carrying out scientific research and the risk managers (usually Codex Committees) and he noted that these Expert Committees were ideally suited to perform risk assessment. Elements of a risk assessment approach were embodied in a number of aspects of their activities, however, the Consultant pointed out that currently “risk assessment policy” components were not part of a coherent strategy determined by the Codex Committees.
62. Dr. Hathaway noted some important procedural differences between JECFA and JMPR in a risk analysis context. He noted that JECFA itself sometimes made a number of risk management decisions during the scientific review process, such as justification for use, technical concerns and in the context of ad hoc responses to questions put to it by the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants. In the case of residues of veterinary drugs, it was noted that risk management decisions were an explicit part of the scientific review.
63. The Consultant summarized his recommendations with respect to actions required by the Expert Committees and Codex Committees: The Expert Committees would need to develop risk assessment frameworks for the scientific review process, and explicitly characterize uncertainty; risk management decisions currently made by the Expert Committees would need to be reassessed, and an interactive model for all risk assessment policy decisions be developed. The Codex Committees would need to adopt common risk analysis principles but it should be accepted that different frameworks could be utilized. There was a strong need to promote the availability of formal quantitative exposure assessments as part of risk assessment, for example, dietary intake of particular ethnic groups and special “at-risk” groups. The Consultant stressed that improved hazard identification procedures were required and consistent decision-making criteria for risk management decisions within the consensus modality were needed.
64. Further recommendations were that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene should develop a general document defining a common language and philosophy of risk analysis. This document should recognize the wide diversity of food hazards, and not create a drive for a single risk analysis methodology. With respect to harmonization of Codex Standards, the Consultant suggested the use of risk assessment frameworks that promote harmonization, and better symmetry of risk assessment methodology used by Codex and national programmes will inevitably reduce risk management problems.
65. Dr. Hathaway reiterated a general recommendation that countries develop a coherent risk communication strategy to inform and to educate consumers that food will always have some minimal level of risk.
66. The Commission unanimously congratulated Dr. Hathaway for preparing this document. It also welcomed the recommendations set forth in ALINORM 93/37 and noted the need for rapid progress in implementing risk analysis in Codex work.
67. In commenting on the paper, several delegations reiterated the importance of recognizing the different components of risk analysis and the importance of increasing transparency in the work of JECFA and JMPR, for example, in the identification of hazards and the choice of safety factors used in safety evaluations. Several delegations strongly supported the view that exposure characterizations relative to dietary intake suffered from a lack of information and consistent risk assessment methodology, and needed to be improved. It was pointed out that this was a particular problem when hazards were distributed across a wide range of foods. Delegations also requested that much more attention be given to quantifying uncertainty in specific risk assessments carried out by the Expert Committees.
68. The Delegation of Austria, supported by other Delegations, underlined that there was at present no direct link between the Maximum Residue Limits derived from considerations of Good Agricultural Practice and the Acceptable Daily Intake for pesticides. They recommended that JECFA and JMPR take into account the potential exposure to food additives and pesticide residues in the same way that potential exposures were calculated by JECFA for residues of veterinary drugs.
69. A number of delegations stressed the future need for consideration of risk analysis by Codex Committees and the Expert Committees and the need for detailed comment on the report by these groups. It was suggested that the acceptance of MRLs would be improved by showing explicitly the application of risk assessment in Codex work. Also stressed was the importance of communicating the outcome of all risk analysis work undertaken by Codex to those developing countries that did not have the resources to carry out such activities.
70. The Commission agreed to send the paper to all relevant Codex Committees, including the Codex Committee on General Principles, for review and discussion, and recommended that the paper should also be brought to the attention of JECFA and JMPR. It was proposed that the Codex Committee on General Principles should address the adoption of risk analysis, including the possibility of changes in the Rules of Procedure and in the Terms of Reference of relevant Codex Committees.
71. The Commission also agreed to make the paper as widely available as possible to governments, interested organizations and industries. The Secretariat indicated that the paper would be published in the scientific literature so that it would be generally available to scientists carrying out risk assessment.
CONVERSION OF CODEX REGIONAL STANDARDS TO WORLD-WIDE STANDARDS-PROGRESS REPORT (Agenda Item 12)
72. The Commission had before it the progress report contained in ALINORM 93/2, and ALINORM 93/2-Add.1 (CRD) presenting government comments at Step 3 on the Regional Standard for Natural Mineral Waters in reply to CL 1993/4-NMW. The Secretariat recalled that the 19th Session had decided on the conversion of regional standards into world-wide standards under the responsibility of the relevant commodity committees. The standards had been circulated for government comments at Step 3.
73. The Delegation of Brazil indicated that it disagreed with many provisions of the Revised Standards for Natural Mineral Waters, Vinegar, Mayonnaise and Edible Cassava Flour and could not accept them. It was agreed that such comments should be directed to the Committees responsible for the development of the standards. It was further agreed to discuss specific comments on mineral waters under Agenda Item 40 (see paragraph 398). The Commission noted that of all of the Regional Standards under review that for Natural Mineral Water should receive the highest priority as this had become a very widely traded commodity.
74. The Commission noted that a number of comments at Step 3 had been received on the Standard for Mayonnaise, which would be considered by the 14th Session of the Committee on Fats and Oils (September 1993). The Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes was currently considering the standards for cereals and derived products. As regards the standards for Natural Mineral Waters, Fresh Fungus “Chanterelle” and Vinegar, the procedure for the amendment of standards elaborated by committees which had been adjourned would be followed as indicated in the Procedural Manual.
MEDIUM-TERM PROGRAMME OF WORK 1993–1998 (Agenda Item 13)
75. While introducing ALINORM 93/38 and its Addenda presenting the Programme of Work (including Appendix 1 on the medium-term objectives and Appendix 2 on the current status of work), the Secretariat recalled that the proposal for a Medium-Term Programme of Work had been endorsed by the 39th Session of the Executive Committee. It had appeared that, up until now, initiatives to undertake new work were largely dependent upon the decisions of individual Codex Committees as statements of overall priorities to achieve consistency with the general objectives of the Commission and its parent organizations had not been defined. The Executive Committee indicated that it was the role of the Commission to establish overall priorities in the light of the programmes set by FAO and WHO so as to orient the work of its subsidiary bodies accordingly. The Commission would then be able to ensure that the work undertaken by individual committees was in accordance with their (medium- or long-term) objectives. The Commission was further informed of the discussions held at the 40th Session of the Executive Committee on this matter (ALINORM 93/4, paras. 21–24).
76. Following the discussions held under Agenda Item 11 on Risk Assessment Procedures used in Codex work the Commission agreed that work on risk analysis should be included in the medium-term programme of work.
77. The Delegations of the United States and Canada suggested that a strategic plan should be established in relation with the overall plan in order to indicate how to proceed to achieve the goals set out in the Medium-Term Programme. The Commission noted that the Executive Committee had also proposed to have a strategy paper prepared for consideration by its next session and agreed to this proposal.
78. Following the discussions on the terms of reference and activity of the Committee on Import and Export Food Inspection and Certification Systems (Agenda item 27), the Commission agreed to modify point 8 of Appendix 1 by deleting the reference to “Model legislation on government certification systems”.
79. The Commission endorsed the medium-term objectives and agreed to recommend that committees should consider them as a standing item for each session. It decided that a report on the current status of work should be made to the Executive Committee and the Commission on a regular basis, to be reviewed in the light of the medium-term objectives. The Medium-Term objectives are attached to the present report as Appendix III.
STATUS OF THE FAO/WHO COMMITTEE OF GOVERNMENT EXPERTS ON THE CODE OF PRINCIPLES CONCERNING MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS (Agenda Item 14)
80. The Secretariat introduced document ALINORM 93/11 which gave a brief analysis of current status and, attached as Annex 1 to the paper, a report provided by the Director-General of FAO on the administrative and financial implications for the Programme as required by Rule IX.9 of the Rules of Procedure. The Commission recalled that it was proposed to change the status of the Milk Committee to establishment under Rule IX.1 (b)(i) to become a Codex Committee and to rename the Committee “Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products”.
81. The Commission noted that the Committee on General Principles had confirmed that this change of status required no major amendments in Rules of Procedure other than consequential changes. It also noted that the Committee on General Principles had discussed the harmonization of elaboration procedures and had proposed the following Terms of Reference for the new Committee:
To elaborate international codes and standards for milk and milk products within the framework of the Codex Alimentarius and the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products.
82. Since the last Session of the Commission four countries had asked formally to be considered as host government for the new Committee; France, Germany, New Zealand and Norway. Each of the four countries expressed its willingness and eagerness to host the Committee. The Commission decided to put the matter to a vote by secret ballot. In the light of the result of the vote, New Zealand was designated by the Commission, under Rule IX.1 to host the Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products, under the Terms of Reference reported above.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES (Agenda Item 15)
83. The Chairman of the Committee, Professor Jean-Jacques Bernier (France) presented the report of the 10th Session of the Codex Committee on General Principles, as contained in ALINORM 93/33, ALINORM 93/33-Add. 1 and Add. 2.
84. The Commission was informed that the amendment to Rule II.1 (ALINORM 93/33 -Appendix II) had been proposed to make it clear that the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen could remain in office only with the continuing endorsement of their government, in order to preserve the intergovernmental character of the Commission. The amendments to Rule II.4 (c) were intended to clarify the functions of the Coordinators to assist the Executive Committee and coordinate Codex work at the regional level. Rule II.4(d) provided for the case where a Coordinator was unable to continue in office by nominating an interim Coordinator.
85. There was general consensus on these proposals. However, the FAO Legal Counsel recalled that pursuant to Rule IV.6, the quorum required to make recommendations for amendments to the Rules of Procedure was a majority of the Members of the Commission, namely 73 countries in the present case. As only 56 countries were present at this meeting, there was no quorum and the amendments could not be formally adopted. Thus, in the event, it would not be sufficient to obtain a two-thirds majority of the votes cast (Rule XIII.1) as the quorum required under Rule IV.6 was a pre-condition to holding the vote. Moreover, Rule XIII.2 specifically provided that Rule IV.6 could not be suspended by the Commission. The WHO Legal Counsel, whilst agreeing with the analysis made by the FAO Legal Counsel, considered, nevertheless, that an alternative solution was available because the Commission was sovereign in the matter and could interpret Rule XIII.1 in such a way that a two-thirds majority of those present could adopt the amendments even if the quorum required were not fulfilled. The Commission concluded that, in the absence of a quorum, the amendments could not be adopted now, although the Member countries attending the session had accepted them in principle. The Commission agreed that a permanent solution should be sought by addressing the basic issue at hand, i.e. the provisions governing the quorum, in order to avoid similar difficulties in future. Therefore, the Commission requested the Legal Counsels of FAO and WHO to consider in detail the issues related to the amendment of the Rules of Procedure and to prepare proposals for consideration by the Committee on General Principles, in April 1994, and subsequently by the Executive Committee and by the Commission itself at its 21st Session.
Proposed amendments to the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius (Acceptance Procedure)
86. The Commission was informed of the proposed amendments to the General Principles (Appendix III of ALINORM 93/33) for the deletion of “target acceptance” and the inclusion of a provision allowing acceptance of standards on the principle of free distribution.
87. It was noted that acceptance procedures might need to be reviewed after the completion of the Uruguay Round. There was a consensus on the necessity of reviewing the current standards and related texts to ensure their relevance in relation to present scientific knowledge and international trade. The Observer of the EC expressed some concern that Codex standards would be used as reference when their acceptance might be limited to a few countries. The Chairman pointed out that this amendment of the provisions for acceptance might be expected to encourage more countries to notify acceptance of Codex standards.
Status of the proposed Amendments to the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius
88. The amendments, as contained in Appendix III of ALINORM 93/33, were adopted by the Commission for inclusion in the Procedural Manual.
Proposed amendments to the Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and related texts
Authorization to omit Steps 6 and 7 by two-thirds majority vote of the Commission
(Appendix IV)
89. It was recalled that this procedure already existed for the elaboration of maximum limits for pesticide residues and residues of veterinary drugs and that the text proposed by the Committee on General Principles implemented the decision of the 19th Session of the Commission to apply the procedure to all Codex standards.
Proposed Draft Uniform Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts
90. The Chariman of the Committee on General Principles introduced the amended procedure which had been proposed in order to harmonize elaboration procedures applying to different categories of Codex texts, as it was agreed that this would lead to greater transparency and clarity. Following discussions held at the 39th Session of the Executive Committee, it had been further agreed to propose a new accelerated procedure for application whenever it was warranted by the urgency of elaborating a Codex standard. The Committee on General Principles had adopted the procedures, as contained in Appendix V of ALINORM 93/33 and subsequently presented in a slightly different form in Add.1 and Add.2 so as to make them more explicit, with a common Introduction, the Uniform Procedure in Part 1 and the Accelerated Procedure in Part 2, as well as the subsequent Publication and Acceptance in Part 3.
91. The Commission noted that a number of safeguards had been introduced as to the criteria justifying this procedure and decided to include in Part II-(1) an additional reference to the “Criteria for the establishment of Work Priorities and for the Establishment of Subsidiary Bodies”. When standards were subject to an accelerated procedure, this would be notified to the Members of the Commission and interested international organizations in the first stages of the procedure. In reply to a question on the confirmation of an Accelerated Procedure initiated by the Executive Committee in the year preceding a Commission session, it was pointed out that the Commission could always return the draft to any appropriate previous Step in the Procedure.
92. Some countries were of the view that, as the FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles Concerning Milk and Milk Products had been converted into a Codex Committee and Codex procedures should therefore be applied to the elaboration of the relevant texts, any special reference to the International Dairy Federation (Part II-(2)) should be deleted. While noting that this question had been discussed by the Committee on General Principles and that it had been agreed to mention IDF in view of its particular input in this area, the Commission agreed to retain this reference.
93. The Commission adopted the proposed amendments for inclusion in the Procedural Manual. In the interim, the revised Procedure is attached to the present report as Appendix 4 for the use of Codex Committees.
Other Matters arising from the Report of the 10th Session of the Committee
Rule XI.4: Funding of participation costs for least developed countries
94. The Committee had considered this matter in detail and had agreed not to change Rule XI. 4 on the funding of costs incurred in connection with attendance at sessions of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies.
Terms of Reference of General Subject Committees
95. The Committee had proposed a number of technical changes to the terms of reference of the Committee on Food Hygiene and the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling, and had approved the amendment of the terms of reference proposed by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants.
Advisory Texts
96. The Committee had recommended that advisory texts should be developed with the same scientific rigour and transparency as Codex standards, and that they should be elaborated through the Step-wise Codex procedures.
Format of Revised Standards (Appendix VI)
97. The Committee had recommended that Codex standards should be reviewed in the light of their relevance in international trade, and should retain only those provisions which appeared essential and were used by governments as regulatory control measures as regarded health, safety and consumer protection concerns.
Preeminent Role of Science in Codex Decisions
98. This matter had been considered by the Committee and it had been agreed that a discussion paper would be prepared by the Secretariat for detailed consideration by the next session of the Committee.
99. The Delegation of Finland, in view of a number of misunderstandings expressed in connection with the application of the proposed Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures developed under the Uruguay Round summarized the main points of the Agreement. The Delegation drew attention to the explanatory notes prepared by the GATT Secretariat which were aimed at dispelling such misunderstandings. The Delegation stated that the SPS Agreement reconfirmed the sovereign rights of countries to take all necessary measures to protect the health and life of their citizens, but simultaneously to established a discipline to ensure that these sovereign rights were not misused for protectionist purposes or for creating unnecessary barriers to trade. The draft SPS Agreement confirmed that measures to protect health might require barriers to trade that are necessary. The Delegation also noted that the SPS Agreement did not strike a balance between health interests and trade interests; it clearly put health before trade. There was not even a requirement on proportionality as for example in some national or supranational legislation: Even unproportional measures were allowed if they were necessary for protecting life and health.
100. In relation to the role of Codex, the Delegation pointed out that it was correct that Codex Standards and other recommendations were referred to as important reference materials, and that there were important incentives for governments to use Codex standards as a basis for national regulations; but there was no obligation for countries to use Codex standards. There was a clear possibility for countries to deviate from Codex standards and to have stricter national measures if the government could show scientific justification or if the government considered that the level of protection contained in the Codex standard was not appropriate to the needs of the government. Under such circumstances governments could establish or maintain stricter measures than those recommended by Codex. Nevertheless, the Delegation stated that it was important that Codex standards were good, scientifically based and up-to date for without such standards the SPS Agreement would not be operational. The Delegation also stated that the SPS Agreement covered food import and export inspection and certification and that it was of equal importance that good international reference documents in these areas were available, even though there was no obligation for governments to use them. It would be up to each government to ensure that control measures were not misused.
101. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on General Principles should continue under the Chairmanship of the Government of France.
CODEX COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR AFRICA (Agenda Item 16)
102. The report of the 10th Session of the Coordinating Committee for Africa (ALINORM 93/28) was introduced by the Chairman, Professor J.A. Abalaka (Nigeria), who informed the Commission of its major activities and conclusions on matters relating to food standardization, food control and information exchange at the regional level. The Chairman also indicated that an FAO Workshop on the Management of Food Control Programmes had been held immediately prior to the session and that more of such workshops would be very useful to the improvement of food control activities in the region.
Proposed Draft African Regional Standard for Processed Couscous at Step 5 of the Procedure (Appendix III)
103. The Delegation of Poland informed the Commission of its comments regarding an error in the composition of couscous (point 3.1) and the expression of acidity in point 3.3.
Status of the Proposed Draft African Regional Standard for Processed Couscous
104. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard, as contained in Appendix III of ALINORM 93/28, at Step 5 of the Procedure.
Other matters arising from the Report of the 10th Session of the Committee
Cooperation with ARSO
105. The Chairman of the Committee recalled that the African Regional Organization for Standardization (ARSO) had been created by African governments to elaborate standards for products moving in inter-African trade. Following the agreement between Codex and ISO as to the respective responsibilities of Codex for food standardization and ISO for methods of analysis and sampling, it appeared essential to avoid duplication of work and overlap of functions at the regional level as well. The Observer from ARSO indicated that his organization had relied on Codex texts to prepare regional standards and agreed that duplication should be avoided to optimize the resources of both bodies. To this effect he suggested that the representatives of ARSO, the Codex Secretariat and the coordinator for Africa should consult together to define better the modalities of cooperation. The Secretariat recalled that effective cooperation already existed with ISO, which provided a significant input at the level of the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling in particular, and welcomed the proposal for further collaboration with ARSO.
Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Street Foods in Africa
106. The Commission was informed that a Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Street Foods in Africa had been considered by the Committee and circulated for government comments at Step 3. This text had been forwarded to the Committee on Food Hygiene for advice and its recommendations are presented under Agenda Item 25 (paras. 248 to 249).
Appointment of Coordinator for Africa
107. Under Rule 4.II (b) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission appointed Professor J.A. Abalaka of Nigeria as Coordinator for Africa. The Delegation of Nigeria confirmed the readiness of its government to host the 11th Session of the Coordinating Committee for Africa.
CODEX COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR ASIA (Agenda Item 17)
108. The Commission had before it ALINORM 93/15, the report of the 8th Session of the Coordinating Committee for Asia. The report was introduced by the Coordinator for Asia, Dato' Dr. Hajjah Azizan Bt. Aiyub Ghazali, Malaysia. Dr. Azizan informed the Commission of the most important points and activities developed by the Coordinating Committee at its 8th Session. The Commission noted that the Coordinating Committee strongly supported Commission initiatives to promote and to implement the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Foods, Commission efforts to strengthen the participation of developing countries in the Codex work, and the establishment and activities of the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems. The Coordinator thanked FAO and WHO for their active and positive assistance in the region in the area of food safety and quality control.
Matters arising from the Eighth Session of the Committee
Code of Practice for Street-Vended Foods
109. The Coordinator informed the Commission that when discussing the matter, the Committee had had two documents before it, WHO Essential Safety Requirements for Street-Vended Foods and a proposed Code of Practice drafted by Malaysia. The Commission was informed that the Committee had decided to seek the advice of the Executive Committee. This matter was also discussed under Agenda Item 25 of this Session. (See paras. 248 to 249)
Labelling of Foods with Regard to Religious Requirements
110. The Coordinator reported that the Committee had decided to seek the advice of the Executive Committee as to the possibility of elaborating codes concerning “halal” slaughtering, preparation and processing. The Executive Committee referred this matter to the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems.
Proposal of the elaboration of Guidelines for Codex Contact Points and National Codex Committees
111. The Coordinator informed the Commission that the Committee had strongly supported the elaboration of Guidelines for Codex Contact Points and National Codex Committees based on a system developed by Thailand. The Commission endorsed the elaboration of Guidelines by the Committee.
Guideline Levels for Radionuclides
112. The Commission was informed that the Coordinating Committee reiterated its opinion that the Guideline Levels for Radionuclides were too high even on an interim basis. It was further informed that the request to establish permanent levels, which are acceptable for long term exposure, had also been reiterated.
Code of Practice for “Low-Energy” or “Reduced-Energy” Foods
113. The Coordinator informed the Commission that the Committee had discontinued the consideration of a proposal to elaborate the Code of Practice in light of the elaboration of Standards for Formula Foods for Use in Weight Control Diets and Formula Foods for Use in Very Low Energy Diets for Weight Reduction by the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses and Guidelines for Use of Health and Nutrition Claims in Food Labelling by the Committee on Food Labelling.
Limits for Mycotoxin Contamination
114. The Commission was informed that the Committee had reiterated its previous position regarding the importance of establishing proper methods of sampling and analysis to ensure the validity of results. It had also renewed its call for Codex Commission to establish more practical and realistic limits for mycotoxins, especially for aflatoxins in animal feeds in view of the concerted efforts made by countries in the Region to reduce contamination.
Appointment of Coordinator for Asia
115. The Commission appointed Dr. Dai Yin of People's Republic of China as Coordinator for Asia under Rule II.4(a). The Delegation of China informed the Commission of the willingness of their Government to host the Codex Coordinating Committee for Asia.
116. The Commission expressed its thanks to the Government of Malaysia for hosting the last session of the Coordinating Committee and thanked Dr. Azizan for her contribution to the work of Codex in the region.
CODEX COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR EUROPE (Agenda Item 18)
117. The Commission had before it ALINORM 93/19, the report of the Eighteenth Session of the Codex Coordinating Committee for Europe. The report was introduced by Mrs Barbro Blomberg (Sweden), the Coordinator for Europe and the Chairman of the Committee. Mrs Blomberg reported that the Coordinating Committee at its 18th Session had discussed in detail a future programme to collect updated information on the national authorities responsible for food safety in Europe and to improve cooperation at the national level between ministries of Agriculture and Health and at international level between countries, with the view towards the harmonization of food control and food policies in European countries.
118. Mrs Blomberg also informed the Commission that the Coordinating Committee had reviewed measures taken by governments to improve consumer participation in matters relating to food legislation. Nevertheless, it was noted that consumer participation was well established in several European countries. Lastly, Mrs Blomberg underlined activities undertaken by the Coordinating Committee in revising the Proposed Draft Guidelines on Organically Produced Food and on measures proposed for the control of contamination with salmonella. The Coordinator raised the following specific matters for the attention of the Commission:
Code of Ethics for International Trade in Foods
119. The Commission noted the opinion of the Coordinating Committee that the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food should be regularly reexamined to take into account developments concerning conditions of production and international trade. The Commission considered that the review of the Code of Ethics was not a priority at this time for Codex, taking into consideration that the newly revised publication of the Code had been recently issued.
Terms of Reference of the Committee
120. The Commission noted that the Coordinating Committee had recommended that the Executive Committee should provide its advice on the point of the Terms of Reference of the Committee dealing with the elaboration of regional standards. The Commission noted that the matter concerning the Terms of Reference of the Codex Coordinating Committees had been brought to the attention of the Committee on General Principles, which will discuss it more fully at its next session.
Appointment of Coordinator for Europe
121. In accordance with Rule II.4. (b) the Commission appointed Dr Stuart Slorach of Sweden as Coordinator for Europe to serve from the end of the 20th to the end of the 21st Session of the Commission. The delegation of Sweden indicated that Sweden would be willing to host the 19th Session of the Coordinating Committee for Europe.
122. The Commission expressed its appreciation to the Government of Sweden for its kind offer to host the Coordinating Committee for a second time and its gratitude to the outgoing Coordinator, Mrs. Blomberg, both for her work as Coordinator over the past two years and for her long service to the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
CODEX COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
(Agenda Item 19)
123. The Commission had before it ALINORM 93/36, the report of the Eighth Session of the Coordinating Committee. The report was presented by Mr. Carlos Ferreira Guimarães (Brazil), the Coordinator for Latin America and the Caribbean. Mr. Guimarães informed the Commission that the Coordinating Committee expressed continued support for the objectives of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement and for a continued collaboration between the Codex Alimentarius and the GATT contracting parties. The Coordinator also underlined that several countries in the Region were in the process of evaluating Codex standards with a view to their future acceptance and stressed the importance of food standards harmonization. The Commission was informed on programmes of control of mycotoxin and activities on food irradiation carried out in the Region. Mr. Guimarães drew the Commission's attention to those matters of interest summarized below.
Code of Hygienic Practice for Street-Vended Food
124. The Coordinating Committee considered the Code of Hygienic Practice for Street-Vended Food at Step 7 and in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Food Hygiene returned the Code to Step 6 for further review. The Commission noted this action.
Development of a list of products of interest to trade requiring the development of internationally harmonized standards
125. Two lists of food products had been elaborated by the Coordinating Committee which decided that both lists would be considered further and that more data should be collected on the respective importance of products in international food trade at export and import before referring them to the Commission.
Strengthening of National Codex Contact Points and National Codex Committees
126. The Coordinating Committee noted progress made in organizing the Codex Contact points and National Codex Committees in the Region, however, further assistance should be given by relevant international organizations in this area. The Commission expressed its appreciation of the work carried out by FAO and PAHO in the Region in this regard.
Microbiological Contamination of Food
127. The Coordinating Committee had agreed with the recommendations arising from the Workshop on Microbiological Contamination in Foods and its implications for International Trade, with a view to improving the control of microbiological contamination and promoting a better exchange of information in the Region.
Appointment of Coordinator for Latin America and the Caribbean
128. The Commission appointed Mr. Carlos Alberto Ferreira Guimarães of Brazil as Coordinator for Latin America and the Caribbean in accordance with Rule II.4(b) to serve for a second term from the end of the 20th to the end of the 21st Session of the Commission. Mr. Guimarães informed the Commission that the Ninth Session of the Coordinating Committee would be held in Brazil in 1995.
CODEX COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR NORTH AMERICA AND THE SOUTH-WEST PACIFIC (Agenda Item 20)
129. The Commission had for its consideration the report of the Second Session of the Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific (ALINORM 93/32), which was held in Canberra, Australia from 2–6 December 1991. The report was introduced by Mr. Digby Gascoine, Coordinator for North America and the South-West Pacific, Who thanked FAO for its efforts in facilitating the participation of several developing countries of the Region at the meeting.
130. The Coordinator for North America and the South-West Pacific drew the Commission's attention to the Summary and Conclusions section as contained in the preamble to the Committee's report. Specifically, the Commission agreed with the Committee's recommendation to coordinate efforts with the International Office of Epizootics. (OIE) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) in the context of regional information exchange and harmonized inspection and certification. The Commission also agreed that implications concerning the broader application of the hazard analysis and critical control point system (HACCP) should be examined by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene and the third session of the Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific.
131. The Commission also noted other matters of interest arising from the Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific, including discussions concerning the review of the Commission's procedures on scientific principles; support for the successful outcome of the GATT Uruguay Round on sanitary and phytosanitary measures; guidance on risk assessment procedures; information sharing between members of the Committee on certification issues; the acceptance of food safety certification instead of inspection at the point of import; and, guidelines on organically and biologically produced foods.
Appointment of Coordinator for North America and the South-West Pacific
132. In accordance with Rule II.4 (a), the Commission appointed Mrs. Katherine Gourlie of Canada as the Coordinator for North America and the South-West Pacific to serve from the end of the 20th to the end of the 21st Session of the Commission. The Delegation of Canada indicated that Canada would be willing to host the 3rd Session of the Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDE RESIDUES (Agenda Item 21)
133. The Commission had before it documents ALINORM 93/24, ALINORM 93/24A and ALINORM 93/24A-Add.1. The reports were introduced by the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, Dr. W.H. Van Eck (The Netherlands) who highlighted the main activities of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues during the last two sessions with the 25th Session being held in Cuba. Dr. Van Eck informed the Commission that the Committee at its last two sessions had discussed risk analysis on the basis of calculations of Theoretical Maximum Daily Intake (TMDI) and Estimated Maximum Daily Intake (EMDI) with reference to what action should be taken when the Estimated Maximum Daily Intake exceeded the ADI. A Working Group had been appointed to produce draft guidelines for consideration at the 26th Session of the Committee.
134. The Commission welcomed developments by the Committee to give greater attention to risk assessment and particularly to the systematic calculation of estimated intake. However, some delegations recommended that when the best estimate of residue intake associated with individual proposed MRLs exceeded the ADI, the defined Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) on which these MRLs were based should be reviewed before the MRLs would be advanced in the Codex Procedure. The Delegation of the United States was of the opinion that even when the estimated residue intake exceeded the ADI, the draft MRLs should advance according to the Codex Procedure but additional data on GAP should be sought and evaluated before the draft MRLs reached Step 8. The Commission requested the Committee to examine the issue. The Delegation of Germany asked that consideration be given to convening a Working Group on the relationship between GAPs, MRL and ADIs taking into account intake estimates. The Chairman of the Committee noted that such matters were discussed in the context of the Committee's ad hoc Working Group on Acceptances.
Draft Maximum Residue Limits at Step 8 and 5/8 of the Codex Procedure
135. The Commission had before it the draft Maximum Residue Limits at Step 8 and 5/8 where the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues had recommended the omission of Steps 6 and 7 (ALINORM 93/24A-Add.1).
136. The Delegation of Sweden, supported by Norway and Finland, reserved its position regarding draft MRLs of cyhexatin for plums and peach, and of azocyclotin for apple, pear, peach, plums and tomato, because estimates of residue intake exceeded the ADI. The Delegation of the United States reserved its position on the draft MRL for glyphosate for unprocessed wheat bran because it was based on wheat at the level of 10 mg/kg. The adoption of a MRL for wheat at 5 mg/kg was not followed by a consequent reduction in unprocessed wheat bran. The Delegation also expressed its reservation on draft MRLs of hexaconazole for wheat and wheat straw and fodder (dry) because data on processing studies and on transfer into animal products had not been provided.
137. The Delegation of France expressed its reservation to the draft MRLs of endosulfan and the Delegation of Brazil expressed its reservation on the draft MRLs of flusilazole.
Status of the Draft Maximum Residue Limits
138. The Commission adopted the draft MRLs at Step 8 except the draft MRLs of cyhexatin for peach and plums; of azocyclotin for apple, peach, pear, plums and tomato; of glyphosate for wheat bran; and of hexaconazole for wheat and wheat straw and fodder. These MRLs were returned to Step 7.
Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits at Step 5 of the Codex Procedure
139. The delegations of Brazil, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Poland, Spain and Sweden expressed reservations on some draft MRLs proposed for adoption at Step 5, which were considered too high or because the pesticide had not been registered for use at national level. The reservations concerned azinphos-methyl, azocyclotin, chlorpyrifos-methyl, cyhexatin, disulfoton, parathion and propoxur. The Observer from the EEC requested that the MRLs for these pesticides including azinphos-methyl be reviewed in the light of new data on GAP.
140. The Chairman of the Committee informed the Commission that a number of these compounds had been submitted to a periodic review and that in some cases the TMDI exceeded the ADI. However there was the possibility for further comments and submission of data on Good Agricultural Practice by member countries. He stated that the elaboration of guidelines on the review of existing Codex MRLs, if the TMDI or EMDI values exceeded the ADI, would help to establish MRLs taking full account of the residue intake. The Chairman also clarified that the draft MRL of azinphos-methyl for citrus fruit had been deleted because no information on registered use or on Good Agricultural Practice had been provided to the Joint FAO/WHO Meetings on Pesticide Residues.
Status of the Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits
141. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft MRLs at Step 5 and the proposed draft amendments to existing Codex MRLs at Step 5 as indicated in document ALINORM 93/24A Add. 1.
Other matters arising from the Reports of the 24th and 25th Sessions of the Committee
Method of Sampling for the Determination of Pesticide Residues in Milk, Dairy Products and Eggs (ALINORM 93/24 Appendix VI)
142. The Commission adopted the proposed draft method of sampling and advanced it to Step 6.
Priority list of pesticides for evaluation
(ALINORM 93/24A paras. 236–249 and Appendix V; ALINORM 93/24A paras. 248–251
and Appendix IV)
143. The Chairman of the Committee informed the Commission that priority lists had been established by the 24th and 25th Sessions of the Committee and attached as Appendices V and IV respectively to the reports. The Commission noted the new Codex Procedure adopted under Agenda Item 15 and agreed to authorize the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues to commence work on the elaboration of MRLs for pesticides referred to in the above lists.
Amendments to the Codex Classification of Food and Animal Feeds
(ALINORM 93/24 paras. 53–55)
144. Amendments to the Codex Classification of food and animal feeds to the numbering system were supported by the Committee at its 24th Session. These amendments had been included in Volume 2 “Pesticide Residues” of the new Codex Alimentarius. The Commission confirmed the amendments proposed.
Establishment of a separate list of Extraneous Maximum Residue Limits (EMRLs)
(ALINORM 93/24 paras 202–204 and ALINORM 93/24A paras. 210–214)
145. The Committee had proposed the elaboration of a separate list of EMRLs for those pesticides that were no longer in agricultural use or where no Good Agricultural Practices were recognized. The establishment of such extraneous or environmental maximum residue limits would be based on contamination monitoring principles and these limits would normally be significantly lower than those based on defined agricultural practices.
146. The Delegation of China pointed out that monitoring data for pesticides which are no longer used should cover different regions of the world with particular reference to developing countries. The Delegation also stressed the need for the development of quick and inexpensive screening methods for pesticide residues.
147. The Commission endorsed the establishment of a separate EMRL list on the basis of contamination monitoring principles.
Deletion of “Guideline Levels” (ALINORM 93/24 paras. 205–210 and ALINORM 93/24A paras. 219–219)
148. Over a number of years the Committee had established a list of so-called “Guideline Levels” for pesticides for which an ADI had not been established. These Guideline Levels had not been submitted to the Commission for adoption, but had been used for the internal reference of the Committee. The existing Guideline Levels had recently been submitted to a review programme in order to delete compounds from the list. The Joint FAO/WHO Meetings on Pesticide Residues had also confirmed that no guidelines levels would be proposed in future for compounds not cleared toxicologically. The Commission welcomed this development.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
149. 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.
150. The Delegation of Cuba expressed its appreciation to the Government of The Netherlands to have accepted Cuba as hosting country for the 25th Session of the Committee and also thanked all participating countries and international organizations which contributed to the success of the meeting held in Havana.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON RESIDUES OF VETERINARY DRUGS IN FOODS (Agenda Item 22)
151. The Commission had for its consideration documents ALINORM 93/31 and 93/31A, which were the reports of the 6th and 7th Sessions of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods, respectively. These reports were introduced by the Committee's Chairman, Dr. Gerald B. Guest (USA).
Consideration of Draft Maximum Residue Limits at Step 8
152. The Commission was informed that the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods had agreed to advance Draft Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for Trenbolone Acetate and Albendazole, as contained in Appendix II of ALINORM 93/31, to the Commission for adoption at Step 8.
153. In order to facilitate its discussions, the Commission decided to discuss the Draft MRLs for Trenbolone Acetate and Albendazole as separate issues.
Trenbolone Acetate
154. The Commission was informed that the 6th Session of the Committee had decided to advance the draft MRLs for Trenbolone Acetate to Step 8 (para. 32, ALINORM 93/31). However, in view of the Commission's decision at its 19th Session not to adopt MRLs for a series of related compounds, the Codex Committee on General Principles had agreed that a discussion paper should be prepared by the Secretariat on the status of scientific principles as the basis for Commission recommendations (see para. 98).
155. Several delegations were of the opinion that the Commission should respond to the challenge posed by this dilemma in the context of the draft GATT Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, which underscored the preeminence of scientific principles in national requirements in this field. The preservation and enhancement of Codex procedures and competence was felt to be especially critical in upholding the reputation of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, which was widely recognized as the international food standardization body. The importance to all Codex member countries, especially from the developing world, in moving forward to adopt the draft MRLs at the earliest opportunity was also stressed.
156. Other delegations were of the opinion that the Commission should await the guidance of the Codex Committee on General Principles on the status of science in Codex procedures and decision-making processes before proceeding further. This was felt to be especially important because the issues did not concern health risks or technical matters, but were mainly focused on policies and principles.
157. In view of the above, the Commission decided that Trenbolone acetate should be held at Step 8 along with the other growth-promoting hormones until such time as guidance was obtained from the Committee on General Principles on the status of science in Codex policies and procedures.
158. The Commission asked the Codex Committee on General Principles to consider developing guidance on how science and other factors should be integrated into its elaboration procedures and decision making processes based on the above discussions. It was further agreed that the discussion should not be limited to hormones, but should be very broad and also cover other Codex standards in areas such as food additives and pesticides, and other contaminants.
159. Although the Commission did not agree with a proposal to establish specific guidelines for the Codex Committee on General Principles when examining this issue, it was noted that other factors in addition to science and their corresponding importance would need to be considered during this review. These factors included legitimate consumer concerns, animal welfare, fraudulent or unfair trading practices, labelling and other ethical and cultural considerations while stressing the preeminence of science in Codex procedures.
160. In light of the Commission's decision, the observer from the Consultation Mondiale de l'Industrie de la Santé Animale (COMISA) stated that it appeared it would not be in a position to recommend to its membership that they place a high priority on becoming involved in the Codex process for establishing veterinary drug residue standards. However, it was stated that each company must make its own decision, taking into account the likely costs and benefits of such decisions.
Status of the Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Trenbolone Acetate
161. The Commission decided to hold the draft Maximum Residue Limit for Trenbolone Acetate along with the draft MRLs for β-estradiol, testosterone, progesterone and zeranol at Step 8, pending guidance provided by the Codex Committee on General Principles concerning this issue.
Albendazole
162. The Observer of the European Economic Community (EEC), while not opposing the adoption of draft maximum residue limits for Albendazole at Step 8, noted that previous technical difficulties with these proposals had been addressed. Specifically, it was stated that the Codex MRLs were based on total residue, while the European Community maximum residue limits were based on the marker residue 2-aminosulfone metabolite. The Delegation of Poland reserved its position on the adoption of the Draft MRLs.
Status of the Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Albendazole
163. The Commission adopted the Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Albendazole at Step 8.
164. The Commission was informed that the Committee had agreed to advance Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Closantel, Ivermectin, Benzylpenicillin, Oxytetracycline and Carbadox to the Commission for adoption at Step 5 with recommendations that Steps 6 and 7 be omitted. The Chairman of the Committee stressed that the elaboration had been based on sufficient information and that these veterinary drugs had been evaluated several times by JECFA.
165. The Delegation of Austria expressed reservations on several of the proposals concerning Benzylpenicillin and Oxytetracycline, bearing in mind its own more stringent requirements now in force for several years and considering the lack of definitive guidelines on the microbiological aspects of the use of these compounds. The Observer of the EEC reiterated the reservation of the position in relation to MRLs for Carbadox and noted that EEC legislation allowed the use of Carbadox as a feed additive but not as a veterinary drug. He further expressed the concern over the use of carbadox as a veterinary drug and noted that Codex MRLs for Carbadox would not be reflected in EEC legislation.
166. In response to a request for information concerning the possible effect of residues of oxytetracycline, the Chairman of the Committee informed the Commission of two recent symposia on microbiological aspects of contaminants held in Europe and USA and by referring to the Report of the 36th JECFA, that the effect of residual oxytetracycline at MRL level on intestinal microflora would not be of any public health concern.
167. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Closantel, Ivermectin, Benzylpenicillin, Oxytetracycline and Carbadox, as contained in Appendix II of ALINORM 93/31A, at Step 8 with the omission of Steps 6 and 7.
Consideration of the Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits at Step 5
168. The Commission was informed that the Committee had agreed to advance the Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Flubendazole, Thiabendazole, Triclabendazole, Isometamidium and Bovine Somatotropins to the Commission for adoption at Step 5.
169. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Flubendazole, Thiabendazole, Triclabendazole, Isometamidium and Bovine Somatotropins, as contained in Appendix IV of ALINORM 93/31A, at Step 5.
Consideration of Draft Code of Practice for the Control and Use of Veterinary Drugs at Step 8
170. The Commission was informed that the Committee had agreed to forward the Draft Code of Practice for the Control and Use of Veterinary Drugs to the Commission for adoption at Step 8.
Status of the Draft Code of Practice for the Control and Use of Veterinary Drugs
171. The Commission adopted the Draft Code of Practice for the Control and Use of Veterinary Drugs, as contained in Appendix VII of ALINORM 93/31A, at Step 8.
172. The Commission was informed that the Committee had agreed to forward to the Commission for adoption at Step 8 the Draft Guidelines for the Establishment of a Regulatory Programme for the Control of Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods, as contained in Appendix VIII in ALINORM 93/31, with some amendments, as contained in Appendix VIII of ALINORM 93/31A.
173. The Commission adopted the Draft Guidelines for the Establishment of a Regulatory Programme for the Control of Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods at Step 8.
Consideration of the Draft Glossary of Terms and Definitions at Step 8
174. The Chairman of the Committee informed the Commission that the Committee had agreed to advance the Draft Glossary of Terms and Definitions to the Commission for adoption at Step 8. The Chairman stressed that the Glossary was necessary for the Committee and had been discussed since the first Session with updating and monitoring as needed.
Status of the Draft Glossary of Terms and Definitions
175. The Commission adopted the Draft Glossary of Terms and Definitions, as contained in Appendix IX of ALINORM 93/31, at Step 8.
Priority List of Veterinary Drugs Requiring Evaluation
176. The Commission was informed that a Priority List had been established by the Committee as contained in Appendix X of ALINORM 93/31A. In the light of the adoption by the Commission of new Codex Procedure under Agenda Item 15, the Chairman of the Committee requested the Commission's authorization to commence work on the elaboration of MRLs for veterinary drugs on the Priority List.
177. The Commission endorsed the Priority List as established by the Committee.
OIE Code of Practice for the Registration of Veterinary Drugs
178. The Commission was informed that the Committee had agreed to attach to ALINORM 93/31A as Appendix IX the final version of the Code of Practice for the Registration of Veterinary Drugs established by the Office International des Epizoöties (OIE) for the information of member governments. The Chairman of the Committee thanked OIE for its efforts and offer to update the Code if necessary.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
179. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the United States of America.
180. The Commission expressed its gratitude for the work of Dr. Guest as Chairman of the Committee since its third Session and wished him all the best in his retirement.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON FOOD LABELLING (Agenda Item 23)
181. The Commission had before it ALINORM 93/22, the report of the 22nd Session of the Committee, which was introduced by Mr. R.B. Burke (Canada) on behalf of Mrs. K. Gourlie, Chairman of the Committee.
Draft Nutrient Reference Values (Draft Amendment of Section 3.3.4 of the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling) (ALINORM 93/22, Appendix II)
182. The Commission was informed that the Committee had approved the Draft Nutrient Reference Values (NRV) with the understanding that the definition and review of these values was an ongoing process, subject to revision according to new scientific data. The Committee had recognized the need for general principles to guide the choice and amendment of NRVs, and had requested the advice of the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses in this respect.
183. The Delegation of Malaysia indicated that it had proposed the inclusion of Vitamin E in the list of NRVs in view of its nutritional importance and wished that this nutrient should be added. The Observer of the EC pointed out that new values were currently being considered at the international level and that this should be taken into account.
184. The Commission adopted the Draft Nutrient Reference Values, as contained in Appendix II of ALINORM 93/22, at Step 8 of the Codex Procedure.
185. In addition to the Report of the Session dealing with this matter, the Committee had before it the comments at Step 5 of Japan (LIM.7) and IFOAM (LIM.8). It was recalled that the 19th Session of the Commission had entrusted to the Committee on Food Labelling the development of the Guidelines which were initiated by the Coordinating Committee for Europe.
186. The Commission was informed that the Committee had amended the Guidelines in the light of the great number of comments received and had proposed its advancement to Step 5, with the understanding that some aspect of the text were of the competence of other committees, especially the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems and the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants.
187. The Commission adopted the Draft Guidelines, as contained in Appendix V of ALINORM 93/22, at Step 5 of the Procedure and advanced them to Step 6.
Other Matters arising from the Report of the 22nd Session of the Committee
Biotechnology
188. As requested by the 19th Session of the Commission, the Committee had considered the issue of foods produced through biotechnology in relation to food labelling and agreed that a discussion paper would be prepared by the Delegation of the United States in the light of government comments on this issue, for consideration by the next session of the Committee.
Endorsement of Labelling Provisions in Codex Standards
189. The Commission noted with approval the endorsement of labelling provisions in Draft Standards proposed by the Committee on Tropical Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, the Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes. The Committee had further recommended that the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses should reconsider the labelling section of the Proposed Draft Standard on Formula Foods for Use in Very Low Energy Diets for Weight Reduction, as its provisions were already covered by the General Standard for the Labelling of and Claims for Prepackaged Foods for Special Dietary Uses, and the Commission endorsed this recommendation.
Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Use of Health and Nutrition Claims
(ALINORM 93/22, Appendix III)
190. The Committee had agreed on the provisions relating to Nutrition Claims but as no consensus could be reached on Health Claims, the Guidelines were returned at Step 3 of the Procedure for further redrafting under the direction of the Delegation of Canada and consideration by the next session of the Committee.
Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Use of the Term “Natural”
191. The Committee had proposed that the Guidelines become an amendment to the General Guidelines on Claims, and returned them to Step 3 for redrafting by the Delegation of Canada.
Labelling of Potential Allergens (ALINORM 93/22, Appendix IV)
192. The Commission was informed that the Committee had considered a working document prepared by Norway (in cooperation with Finland, Iceland and Sweden) on the problems associated with the labelling of allergens and proposing amendments to the General Standard on Labelling, especially in relation with Section 4.2.1.3 (25% rule). The recommendations were considered by the Committee, taking into account the advice of the 38th Session of the Executive Committee to proceed with caution in this area, and circulated for government comments at Step 3. The Commission endorsed the proposal of the Committee to initiate work on the Labelling of Potential Allergens.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
193. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Committee on Food Labelling should continue under the Chairmanship of the Government of Canada.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON FOOD ADDITIVES AND CONTAMINANTS (Agenda Item 24)
194. The Commission had for its consideration the reports of the 24th and 25th Sessions of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (ALINORM 93/12 and ALINORM 93/12A, respectively). Government comments submitted in response to CL 1992/8-FAC and 1993/8-FAC were also summarized in documents ALINORM 93/39, CAC/LIM 3 (ALINORM 93/39-Add.1) and CAC/LIM 7 (ALINORM 93/39-Add. 2). The reports were introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Mrs. C.G.M. Klitsie (The Netherlands).
Proposed Draft Maximum Level for Aflatioxin M1 in Milk
195. The Commission was informed that the Committee had decided on a maximum level of 0.05μg/kg for aflatoxin M1 in liquid milk for forwarding to the Commission for adoption at Step 5 (Appendix V, ALINORM 93/12). The Commission also noted that the Committee had decided to discontinue the consideration of establishing a level for aflatoxin M1 in milk destined for infant foods (paras. 81–85, ALINORM 93/12).
196. In discussing the proposed draft maximum level, several delegations, while noting that levels of aflatoxins should be kept as low as possible, were of the opinion that a level of 0.5 μg/kg was a more realistic value, as lower values were not necessary to insure consumer protection based on the available data. The feasibility, practicality and need for such a level to facilitate international trade were also noted as important factors to consider when establishing such limits. In view of ongoing discussions in the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants and the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling to develop general criteria for the evaluation of contaminants, to establish levels for aflatoxin in feed and to establish methods of analysis and sampling, it was suggested that the consideration of the level should be suspended for the time being.
197. A similar number of delegations, while noting that the proposed levels were based on valid scientific data and extensive Committee discussions, supported their adoption. It was stressed that levels for such a potentially toxic contaminant in milk, which could be maintained by controlling levels in feed, should be established as soon as possible to ensure consumer protection especially for children. The Observer of the International Dairy Federation also stated that the proposed levels could be detected by an immuno-affinity column assay method developed by an AOAC/ISO/IDF tripartite group.
Status of the Proposed Draft Maximum Level for Aflatoxin M1 in Milk
198. The Commission agreed to adopt the proposed draft maximum level at Step 5, with the understanding that the statements mentioned as well as a review of available methods of analysis and sampling, and a thorough risk analysis would be carefully considered by the Committee before the Draft Maximum Level would be forwarded to the Commission for final adoption.
Consideration of Draft Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives at Step 8
199. The Commission was informed that the Committee had agreed to forward Categories I and II of those specifications arising from the 37th and 39th JECFA (Appendix III, ALINORM 93/12 and Appendix V, ALINORM 93/12A, respectively) for adoption as Codex Advisory Specifications at Step 3 (i.e., under the previous special procedures for the elaboration of Codex Advisory Specifications). It was noted that Uniform Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts were recently adopted by the Commission (see Agenda Item 15(c) above) and therefore, the specifications were in fact being submitted for adoption at the equivalent of Step 8.
Status of the Draft Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives
200. The Commission adopted those specifications listed above as Codex Advisory Specifications at Step 8 based on the newly revised elaboration procedures. The Commission noted that Codex Advisory Specifications were not subject to government acceptance.
