COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR AFRICA
176. The Commission had before it the Report of the Second Session of the Coordinating Committee for Africa held in Accra in September 1975, as contained in ALINORM 76/28. The report was introduced by Dr. Robert Oteng, Coordinator for Africa, who highlighted the deliberations of the Committee on the various subjects before the meeting, particularly the endorsement by the Committee of the Model Food Law and the emphasis placed by the Committee on the need for developing better food control infrastructure in the Region.
177. The Coordinator pointed out that the role and task of the Coordinating Committee for Africa could not be compared with that of the Coordinating Committee for Europe, mainly because food legislation and food control in many of the countries of the region were still in the process of development. In this connection he stated that, in order to stimulate participation by African countries in the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and to expedite development of food control infrastructure, the role of the Coordinator should be operational in character and that funding assistance from the Commission, OAU, ECA or directly from countries of the region would be sought.
178. The Commission noted, however, that the Executive Committee, at its Twenty First Session, had given careful consideration to the role of Codex Coordinators in developing regions. The Executive Committee had concluded that as the work of the Commission was recommandatory or advisory, but not operational in the sense in which this term is normally understood - it did not operate technical assistance programmes, for example - the work of the officers of the Commission was not operational either. The Executive Committee discussions on this subject, including the role of Coordinators as seen by the Executive Committee were to be found in document ALINORM 76/3, paras 38 to 46.
179. Although the Commission appreciated the special problems and circumstances of the Coordinating Committee for Africa, it did not depart from the conclusions of the Executive Committee concerning the role of Coordinators, and therefore, as had been indicated previously, there was no provision for the allocation of funds to the office of the Coordinator, to enable him to function on an operational basis. This was the position under the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, which all the Members of the Executive Committee had decided not to propose to change. The Coordinator for Africa would therefore, have to continue to operate, as before, on a voluntary basis.
180. The Commission agreed that if funds were to be made available from the sources mentioned in the deliberations of the last session of the Coordinating Committee for Africa, held in Accra in September 1971, it would greatly assist the Coordinator in making more frequent contacts with member countries or in taking other action to further Codex work in the region.
181. The Commission reconsidered, as had been requested by the Coordinating Committee, its decision not to elaborate a standard for coffee and coffee products. Since the discussions by the Commission on this subject at the Tenth Session, no further information had been made available by Member Governments. The Secretariat indicated that trade statistics were already available. The work done by ISO and the EEC on coffee products was mentioned by several delegations. However, on the proposal of the Chairman of the Commission, it was agreed to request the Executive Committee to reconsider, in the light of the discussions over the years and the data available in documents presented earlier, whether or not Codex standards for coffee and coffee products should be developed.
182. The Commission noted that the Coordinating Committee had drawn up a list of products of significance in the trade of African countries which should be considered for possible standardization. Amongst these, tuber products had been given a high priority. In view of the interest in this commodity also in other regions, it was agreed to consider this proposal later during the session in conjunction with the discussions on the Secretariat paper on cereals, cereal products, tubers and starches.
183. With regard to the interest expressed by the Coordinating Committee in establishing limits for metallic contaminants in specific foods, the Commission was reminded of its decision to request Commodity Committees to propose limits, where appropriate.
184. The Commission noted that a provision had been made in the proposed budget of the Programme for 1976/77 for a consultant to assist in the preparation of the work of the Coordinating Committee. In this connection the Secretariat indicated that it would consult with the Coordinator regarding priorities in the subject matters to be dealt with.
Appointment of Coordinator for Africa
185. In accordance with Rule II.4(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and on the unanimous proposal of the Coordinating Committee for Africa, the Commission reappointed, by general consent, Dr. Robert Oteng (Ghana) as Coordinator for Africa to serve for a second term from the end of the Eleventh Session to the end of the Twelfth Session of the Commission.
COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR LATIN AMERICA
186. The Chairman of the First Session of the Coordinating Committee for Latin America, Dr. E.R. Méndez, outlined the business discussed at the first session of the Committee (ALINORM 76/17). The main items of discussion by the Committee were as follows. The Coordinating committee had discussed work priorities and had suggested areas of priority which the Committee might pursue in the future. In view of the fact that a second session of the Coordinating Committee had not been scheduled in 1976/77, the Coordinating Committee had agreed that the Regional Food Standards Conference for Latin America, which was scheduled for 1977, should consider these work priorities, among other questions: e.g. a review and development of food legislation and food control infrastructures in Latin America including the consideration of a draft model food law similar to that discussed by the Coordinating Committee for Africa. The Committee had drawn up a provisional agenda for the Conference and had agreed tentatively on the functions of the Coordinator for Latin America.
187. The Committee had also raised the question as to what criteria determined membership in a given geographic location of the Commission and whether a country could be a member of more than one geographic location and participate as full member in more than one Regional Coordinating Committee.
188. In this connection the Commission noted that for reasons of timing, paragraphs 24 to 31 of ALINORM 76/17 had not been adopted by the Coordinating Committee but that they had been cleared by the Chairman of the Committee. On the proposal of the delegation of Cuba, the Commission amended the first sentence of para 24 as follows: “A question was raised by the delegation of Cuba as to what were the criteria which determined a location”. On the proposal of the same delegation paragraph 29 was also amended as follows: “Several delegations were also of the opinion that the problems outlined by the delegation of Brazil, which had wide implications, should be considered at a later stage and that no conclusions could be reached at the present session”. On the proposal of the delegation of Brazil, paragraph 28 of ALINORM 76/17 was replaced by the following text: “The delegation of Brazil considered that the precedent set at the first session of the Coordinating Committee for Africa and the statement of the Legal Counsel did not satisfactorily explain the question concerning participation as Member of a country in more than one of the regional committees of the Codex Alimentarius Commission or the question of membership in more than one of the geographic locations of the Commission. It was further of the opinion that the region of Latin America was a well-defined one, which had interests particular to it. In its view, the question of participation as a full member should be decided primarily on the basis of the functions and objectives of the Committee, as a body for the definition of priorities and coordination of policies within the region. The efficiency of the Committee would be impaired if its membership were not restricted to countries with similar interests and which actually belonged to the region. This was not to say that participation as an observer by any interested Member Country in the work of Codex regional committees, in accordance with Rule VII.3 of the Commission, was not desirable”. The Commission considered that paragraphs 24 to 31 of ALINORM 76/17, as amended above, could be regarded as having been adopted and the Secretariat undertook to re-issue ALINORM 76/17 as amended to Codex Contact Points.
Appointment of Coordinator for Latin America
189. In accordance with Rule II.4(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and on the unanimous proposal of the Coordinating Committee for Latin America, the Commission appointed, by general consent, Dr. E.R. Méndez (Mexico) as Coordinator for Latin America to serve from the end of the Eleventh Session to the end of the Twelfth Session of the Commission.
JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS REGIONAL CONFERENCE FOR ASIA - Bangkok 8–15 December 1975
190. The Commission had before it document CX/ASIA 75/9, which was an advance copy of the body of the report of the above Conference, pending reproduction of the complete report, including list of participants, country statements and other information. The report was introduced by Professor A. Bhumiratana (Thailand) who reviewed the salient features of the Conference and thanked the Directors-General of FAO and WHO for making the Conference possible.
191. The Secretariat expressed the appreciation of FAO and WHO to the Government of Thailand for having hosted the Regional Conference and for having made all the necessary arrangements for its success. Appreciation was also expressed to the Government of Australia for their financial contribution towards the holding of the Conference. The Conference had proved to be extremely useful to the participating countries and to the Secretariat in highlighting the problems of Asia with regard to food legislation, food standards and food control infrastructure, including the need for strengthening of laboratories and training of analytical and food inspection personnel. Participation by some of the industrialized countries and the representatives of IOCU and ASMO as observers at the Conference greatly benefited the discussions and provided an opportunity to discuss the various problems regarding food standards, food control and consumer protection in a wide perspective. The Commission noted with pleasure the fact that the Conference had given general approval to the Model Food Law which had been prepared for its consideration.
192. The delegation of Iran regretted that, due to some last minute unavoidable circumstances, the country could not participate at the Conference. The delegation further informed the Commission that their country fully supported the Resolution contained in paragraph 112 of the report and endorsed the other recommendations made at the Conference.
193. Several delegations, including the representative of IOCU, who had participated in the Conference, referred to the very useful discussions held during the Conference which highlighted some of the special problems of food adulteration in the region and the need for improved food control and the development of food industry and trade. The Commission was requested by several delegations from the region of Asia to support strongly the implementation of the Resolution (paragraph 112 of the report of the Conference) adopted by the Conference which would call for assignment of additional resources. In this connection a delegation made reference to the work of the Asian Standards Advisory Committee (ASAC), set up under ESCAP, which had encountered some difficulties in the progress of its work because of the lack of adequate resources.
194. A point was made regarding the limited participation of the countries of the Asian region in the meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies. It was suggested that FAO and WHO might explore means to emphasize the importance of the Commission's work to the member countries of the region and determine what could be done to increase their active participation.
195. The delegation of New Zealand inquired about the origin of the Model Food Law and referred to the provisions in it relating to warranty and the supervision of exports. It might be helpful to include with the code an explanation of the purpose of the provisions in it. The secretariat informed the Commission that the Model Food Law was originally drafted by the Secretariat on the basis of FAO's experience in assisting developing countries in food control. It drew considerably on the Canadian Food and Drugs Act. The draft law had been further reviewed by an Ad Hoc Joint FAO/WHO Committee of Experts and the latest version presented to the African and Asian countries was the one that took that Committee's comments into account. Referring to the warranty clause, attention was drawn to similar provision in other food legislations of certain developed and developing countries. In these countries where such a clause exists in their legislation it seemed to work fairly satisfactorily and did not cause any barrier to trade. The special needs of developing countries made it all the more necessary that careful consideration should be given to inclusion of such a clause in the national food legislation. As regards exports, the Model Food Law contained an enabling provision for the Government to make necessary regulations, if the circumstances so warranted. There was a strong need to look at the food control requirements of a country in an integrated manner. Many governments had separate export inspection legislation of one type or another. In an area such as food, it would be useful to consider the various possibilities before deciding on a particular course of action. The Commission gave a general acceptance to the Report of the Conference and noted the Resolution in paragraph 112 of the Report.
Appointment of Coordinator for Asia
196. In accordance with Rule II.4(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and on the unanimous proposal of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Regional Conference for Asia, the Commission appointed, by general consent, Dr. K.O. Leong (Malaysia) as Coordinator for Asia, to serve from the end of the Eleventh Session to the end of the Twelfth Session of the Commission.
Establishment of a Coordinating Committee for Asia
197. As requested by the Commission at its last session, when it agreed in principle to the establishment of a Coordinating Committee for Asia, the Commission had before it at its present session document ALINORM 76/21, setting out the administrative and financial implications of establishing a Coordinating Committee for Asia. The Commission noted that provision had been made in the budgetary proposals for 1976/77 for one session of the Coordinating Committee to be held in the biennium. The Commission was informed by the Secretariat that the session could be held in the region of Asia if a Member Government in the region were found willing to host the session. The Secretariat indicated that it might be possible to make some contribution towards defraying the costs of the session from the budget of the Programme. The Commission noted that there would be consultation between the Coordinator for Asia and the Secretariat on this matter and on the date of the First Session of the Coordinating Committee.
198. The Coordinator for Asia thought that a suitable time for holding the First Session of the Coordinating Committee would be towards the end of 1976. The Secretariat indicated that in fixing a date for the session it would be necessary to allow adequate time for the preparation and distribution in good time of all of the working documents for the session.
199. The Commission noted that arrangements had been made for an ad hoc meeting of delegates from the region of Asia on 8 April 1976, for the purpose of discussing arrangements for and the general programme of work of the Coordinating Committee's First Session.
200. The Commission agreed to establish a Coordinating Committee for Asia with the following membership and terms of reference:
“Membership:
Membership of the Committee is open to all Member Nations and Associate
Members of FAO and/or WHO which are Members of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, within the geographic location of Asia.
Functions:
The Committee exercises general coordination in the preparation of standards
relating to the region of Asia and exercises such other functions as may be
entrusted to it by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.”
COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR EUROPE AND CODEX COMMITTEE ON NATURAL MINERAL WATERS
201. The Coordinator for Europe, Dr. H. Woidich, recalled the decision made by the Tenth Session of the Commission that the Draft Regional Standard for Natural Mineral Waters should be tabled until the question in connection with claims concerning properties favourable to health had been resolved (see paragraphs 280-289, Report of the Tenth Session of the Commission). The Coordinator for Europe informed the Commission that, as a result of discussions with representatives of WHO, representatives of industry and the Codex Secretariat, a new revised draft standard for natural mineral waters had been worked out. This revised draft appeared to have overcome the difficulties encountered previously in connection with health claims and also included certain improvements over the previous text as included in Appendix II, ALINORM 72/19A.
202. The representative of WHO referred to a recent meeting between the Coordinator for Europe, representatives of the Swiss National Codex Committee and of WHO. He indicated that the meeting had discussed in detail the redraft of the European regional standard for mineral waters and had agreed upon the approach on how to proceed in this matter.
203. Considering (a) that the redraft of the standard for natural mineral waters would require a round of government comments; and (b) that no meeting of the Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters had been provided for in the 1976/77 biennium, the Commission decided that the Draft Standard for NAtural Mineral Waters (Appendix II, ALINORM 72/19A), as redrafted on the basis of the various discussions which had been organized by the Coordinator for Europe, should be returned to Step 6 of the Procedure. The commission agreed that a combined one week session of the Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters and of the Coordinating Committee for Europe should consider the revised draft in the light of comments received.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
204. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Switzerland.
205. The delegation of Austria drew the Commission's attention to a questionnaire which had been issued to Governments and which had indicated the interest in the question of boneless meat of countries in the European Region. The Commission recalled its previous decision that no work needed to be done on this commodity, but agreed that the next session of the Coordinating Committee for Europe might rediscuss the question of boneless meat in order to see whether or not there was still interest in this question and, if so, what further action might be envisaged.
206. In reply to a question by the delegation of New Zealand, the Secretariat informed the Commission that all documents intended for Codex Coordinating Committees were, as a matter of normal practice, sent to all member countries of the Commission and that, furthermore, the Rules of the Commission provided for participation in an observer capacity of all Members of the Commission not members of the regions concerned. It would be a matter for Members of the Commission outside a given region to make known their interest in being represented, as invitations were not issued to them automatically.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON COCOA PRODUCTS AND CHOCOLATE
207. The Commission had before it the report of the Eleventh Session of the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate (ALINORM 76/10) and government comments on the Draft Standards for Cocoa Butter and Chocolate at Step 8, contained in ALINORM 76/42-Part I and LIM 3.
208. The Commission agreed to reverse the order of agenda items 15(a) and (b) and consequently received the introduction of the report by the Chairman of the Committee, Dr. E. Matthey (Switzerland) before consideration of the standards at Step 8.
209. The Commission, at its previous session (ALINORM 74/44, paras 83–91), discussed the above standard and had agreed to return it to Step 7 until such time as the FAO Study Group on Cocoa could meet and review the FAO Model Ordinance on which part of the standard was based. It was reported that the review had not yet taken place and the Commission had, therefore, no business under this item. Dr. Matthey then reviewed the status of work of the Committee as summarized at page 14 of ALINORM 76/10.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Cocoa Butter at Step 8
210. The Commission had before it the above draft standard as contained in ALINORM 76/10, Appendix II, for which the Chairman of the Committee acted as rapporteur.
211. The delegation of Argentina made a general statement indicating its readiness to accept the standard for incorporation into the food regulations of its country.
Section 2 - Description
212. The Commission noted, from the original description that 2.1.1 “Expeller Cocoa Butter” prepared from cocoa nib or cocoa mass only could be the same as press cocoa butter.
213. The Commission therefore agreed to the following amendment, proposed by the delegation of Japan, to 2.1.2 - Expeller Cocoa Butter: “Expeller Cocoa Butter is the fat prepared by the expeller process from cocoa beans singly or in combination with cocoa nib, cocoa mass, cocoa press cake and low fat cocoa press cake, as described respectively in sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 and complying with the Minimum Qualities laid down in section 3 of the Standard for Cocoa (Cacao) Beans, Cocoa (Cacao) Nib, Cocoa (Cacao) Mass, Cocoa Press Cake and Cocoa Dust (Cocoa Fines). It may only be treated …”
Section 3 - Essential Composition and Quality Factors
214. With regard to saponification values, the delegation of Ghana pointed out that values exceeding 198 did not normally occur in the butter of cocoa beans traded internationally and that in the opinion of the producing countries the footnote (***) allowing for the limit to be surpassed exceptionally was unnecessary. The Commission decided, however, to retain the footnote.
Section 4 - Food Additives
215. The Commission noted that a Working Group on Food Additives in Cocoa Butter had met during the Eleventh Session of the Committee. The Working Group had recognized that the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils had removed all reference to processing aids in their standards since no residues of processing aids remained in the finished product. The Committee had accepted the recommendations of the Working Group to delete the present provision for processing aids in the standard for Cocoa Butter which covered clarifying and filtration aids, and neutralizing and bleaching agents.
216. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Additives expressed concern at the deletion of processing aids from standards. He pointed out that the “total” disappearance of substances added in processing was a function of the limits of detection of the methods of analysis employed and that the retention of processing aids in the food additives section of the standard and the specifications of identity and purity for these products were essential to consumer protection.
217. There was further discussion as to whether extraction solvents for which residue limits were stated were food additives or processing aids or, as suggested by some delegations, should be declared under contaminants. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Additives informed the Commission that the entire subject was to be discussed at the next session of his Committee. The delegation of Belgium stated that generally speaking an actual contaminant which appears in a commodity standard in the section on food additives shall be mentioned on the label of the product.
Section 7 - Labelling
218. The Commission noted that this section would not be endorsed by the Food Labelling Committee, since this product was used only as an ingredient in other food products (ALINORM 76/22, para 4) and agreed to include a statement to this effect instead of the present opening sentence of the section. It was pointed out that this would seem at first sight to be contrary to the terms of reference of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling which stated at 3(a) “To draft provisions on labelling applicable to all foods”. The Commission noted that so far only prepackaged foods had been considered by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling and that the principle applicable to the particular case of cocoa butter would be discussed when the Committee dealt with the labelling of bulk containers and shipping containers at its next session.
Status of the Standard
219. The Commission adopted as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Cocoa Butter, as amended, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Chocolate at Step 8
220. The Commission had before it the above standard which was contained in ALINORM 76/10, Appendix III and Corrigendum. The Rapporteur, in introducing the standard, drew the attention of the Commission specifically to the range of products covered by the standard - all designated chocolate with or without a further qualifying term.
221. The representative of the EEC pointed out that certain products which in some countries traditionally had been called “chocolate” but which contained limited quantities (equal to or less than 5%) of e.g. egg yolk or honey could, in accordance with the present text for the designation of the product and when complying with the acceptance procedure, no longer be called “Chocolate” nor “composite chocolate”. This would exclude the word ‘chocolate’ without qualification from many products which had traditionally carried this description. The representative of the EEC suggested that to overcome this difficulty Section 7 - Labelling, should carry the following footnote: “The use of the description “chocolate” in the present section does not exclude the same term being employed in a future standard related to Composite Chocolate to describe a chocolate to which certain edible substances have been added in a form which is practically indiscernable in quantities not exceeding 5% m/m of the final product”.
The delegation of Ireland pointed out that it had before the Commission (document LIM 3) an amendment on this specific point, but that it was willing to withdraw the amendment provided that the EEC footnote was adopted.
222. The representative of the IOCU pointed out that consumer expectation varied from country to country and he was of the opinion that the range of products presently covered by the standard, with the addition of the footnote proposed by the representative of the EEC, would allow the consumer to find the products he expected in his country. The delegation of Canada expressed concern that such a proviso would permit too free an interpretation of what constituted “chocolate”.
223. The delegation of Ghana reminded the Commission of the decision taken at the meeting of the Committee in Neuchâtel in 1971 (ALINORM 72/10, para 49) to set the minimum total cocoa solids in milk chocolate at 25% and expressed strong objection at the deviation, from this decision of the composition of chocolate as described under sections 3.1.7, 3.1.13 and 3.1.14. A number of delegations associated themselves with this point of view.
224. Other delegations which agreed in principle with the advancement of the draft standard expressed some specific reservations. The delegation of Finland pointed to a possible contradiction, in that the use of lactose was permitted as a sugar for which a Codex standard had been elaborated (CAC/RS 11-1969) but was restricted when listed under the heading of milk solids as an optional ingredient. The delegation of Japan informed the Commission that in their country a type of chocolate containing more than 30% of total cocoa solids, but not being covered by the draft standard for chocolate, had been produced for the past several decades. They expressed their concern about this type of chocolate that could be no longer designated as ‘chocolate’ when the standard was advanced to step 9.
225. Some inconsistencies in the translation into French of the text at sub-sections 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 3.1.4 and 7.1.7 were brought to the attention of the Commission. These should be rectified by the Secretariat.
226. The Chairman of the Committee agreed to the footnote proposed by the delegation of the EEC. Concerning the decision at Neuchâtel referred to by the delegation of Ghana and several other delegations, he noted that the same kind of debate had taken place at the last meeting of the Committee in Zurich (ALINORM 76/10, paras 78–83), when the delegation of the United Kingdom had shown that this type of chocolate was a traditional product which was produced in large quantities and widely exported. He considered that a workable compromise was to accept as name for the product ‘milk chocolate’ provided that the milk solids and cocoa solids content were declared. The delegations of Belgium, France and the Federal Republic of Germany expressed reservations on this subject, feeling that two products of different composition should be named differently.
227. The delegation of Ghana repeated its opposition to the inclusion of milk chocolate with high milk content in the standard and considered that if the products listed under 3.1.7, 3.1.13 and 3.1.14 could be relocated, appropriately named, in other standards, then the present standard could be advanced without difficulty.
Status of the Standard
228. The Commission decided to include the footnote to the labelling section referred to above. It further agreed to retain milk chocolate with high milk content in the standard. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Chocolate, as amended, at step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
229. Reservations on the Commission's decision were expressed by the following delegations: Brazil, Congo, Cuba, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Kenya, Nigeria, Portugal, Senegal, Togo and Tunisia. The representatives of COPAL and the East African Community expressed their agreement with the reservations made by these countries. The delegation of Canada reserved its position with regard to the inclusion of the footnote.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
230. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Switzerland.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON PROCESSED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
231. The Commission had before it the Report of the Eleventh (1974) and Twelfth (1975) Sessions of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables, as contained in ALINORM 76/20 and ALINORM 76/20A respectively. The reports were introduced by Dr. R.W. Weik (USA) who acted as Rapporteur.
232. At its Ninth Session the Commission had decided that the Draft Standard for Canned Fruit Cocktail should be returned to step 7 of the Procedure, as it had noted that there was a problem regarding the composition of fruit mixtures which should be permitted to be designated Canned Fruit Cocktail. It had agreed that the Secretariat should request information on what mixtures of fruits were canned and what designations the various mixtures were given. The information was also to have included data on trade in the various mixtures.
233. The Committee at its Eleventh Session had considered the replies to the request for information and had noted that a very large part of the products marketed under the name of Canned Fruit Cocktail conformed to the present draft standard and that this product had been in commerce for approximately 40 years. The Committee had, therefore, agreed not to permit under the designation of Canned Fruit Cocktail the use of fruits other than those listed in the Standard.
234. Some delegations from the region of Europe proposed that a further standard be elaborated for a fruit mixture which would include fruits grown in their countries. It was agreed to discuss this matter further when considering future work for the Coordinating Committee for Europe.
235. At its Tenth Session the Commission had noted that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling had endorsed the labelling section of the standard with one amendment. It was pointed out that there was no provision for lot identification in the standard, although this was provided for in all other standards for processed fruits and vegetables presently under consideration by the Committee. The Commission agreed to include this provision in the standard.
Status of the Standard for Canned Fruit Cocktail
236. The Commission adopted as a Recommended standard, the Draft Standard for Canned Fruit Cocktail, with the above amendment, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
237. The Rapporteur informed the Commission that the present standard had been discussed at a number of sessions of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables. The Committee, at its Twelfth Session, had finalized work on the draft standard and had agreed that a single General Standard covering two groups of products with different fruit contents designated “Specifications A and B” would be the best solution. This distinction was modeled on specifications agreed in the Recommended International Standard for Soft Sugars (CAC/RS 6-1969).
238. The Commission discussed the draft standard at considerable length. A considerable number of amendments were proposed. The Commission was informed, however, that the Committee, at various stages during its deliberations, had considered these proposals and that the present standard reflected the outcome thereof.
239. With regard to the additives listed in the standard, it was noted that not all had been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives. It was agreed that the Food Additives section should be reviewed by the Committee on Food Additives at its next session, taking into account the comments made by a number of governments which were contained in ALINORM 76/42-Part III (rev.) + Addendum 1.
240. A number of delegations pointed out that the translation of the term “jam” would present difficulties. The delegation of Uruguay, supported by the delegations of Spain and Venezuela, proposed - and it was agreed - that in Spanish the term “mermeladas” would be used in the title and in the text of the standard. The delegation of Portugal, supported by the delegation of Brazil, stated that in Portuguese-speaking countries the term “marmalade” is only used for quince (Cydonia oblonga L.) jam which in Portuguese is called “marmelo”. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling had endorsed the labelling section of the standard with three amendments (ALINORM 76/22A, paras 8-19).
Status of the General Standard for Jams (Fruit Preserves) and Jellies
241. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft General Standard for Jams (Fruit Preserves) and Jellies, with the amendments mentioned above, for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards, with the proviso that the additives section would be reviewed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives at its next session, it being understood that, in accordance with established practice, any additive provisions not endorsed or temporarily endorsed would be deleted from the standard.
242. The delegation of Japan reserved its position with regard to the coverage by the standard of products with different fruit content. It further held the view that the term “jam” should be restricted to products complying with Specification A and should not be used for products covered by Specification B. The delegations of Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden reserved their positions with regard to the use of certain food additives. The delegation of Austria proposed to include a provision for contaminants. The Commission decided not to take action on this proposal, since the matter would need to be considered, in the first instance, by the Committee.
243. The Commission noted that the Draft General Standard for Citrus Marmalade was closely related to the Draft General Standard for Jams and Jellies and that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling had endorsed the labelling section of the standard with three amendments (ALINORM 76/22A, paras 21–25).
244. Several delegations pointed out that the translation of the term “jellymarmalade” would also present difficulties. It was noted that the French translation of this term would be “marmelade-gelée”. The delegations of Spain, Uruguay and Venezuela drew attention to the need to correct the Spanish translation of the term “jelly-marmalade” to read “jalea de agrios”. Several Spanish-speaking delegations pointed out that the Spanish translation of the title of the standard could also give rise to misunderstandings and it was agreed that the title of the standard should be translated as “Proyecto de Norma General para Marmelada y Jalea de Agrios”.
Status of the General Standard for Citrus Marmalade
245. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft General Standard for Citrus Marmalade, with the amendments mentioned above, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards, with the proviso that the additives section would be reviewed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives at its next session, it being understood that, in accordance with established practice, any additive provisions not endorsed or temprarily endorsed would be deleted from the standard.
246. A number of delegations and the observer of the IOCU supported the opinion of the delegation of France that an obligatory declaration of “net drained weight” should be made and that this provision should be included in all standards for processed fruits and vegetables products. It was pointed out that “net drained weight” was not uniformly defined, and that this subject would be considered at the next session of the Committee on Food Labelling. The delegation of Norway questioned the inclusion in a Codex standard of a method of analysis which was not a referee method. The Commission noted that the Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables had established a minimum limit for the total dry solids content of the product and agreed to await the recommendations of the Food Labelling Committee.
247. Several delegations expressed their concern at the extent of the additive list and urged that consideration be given to the question of whether it could not be reduced. In this connection, the Commission agreed that the same procedure should be followed as with the two other draft standards considered by it. It was noted that the Food Labelling Committee had endorsed the Food Labelling section with minor amendments (ALINORM 76/22A, paras 26–30).
Status of the Draft Standard for Canned Mature Processed Peas
248. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Canned Mature Processed Peas with the amendments mentioned above, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards, with the proviso that the additives section would be reviewed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives at its next session in the way mentioned above.
249. The Commission considered at Step 5 of the Procedure the above-mentioned proposed draft standard and decided to advance it to Step 6.
250. The Rapporteur introduced a proposal of the U.S.A. for an amendment to the above standard to bring it in line with other canned fruit standards with respect to the packing media. The Commission agreed to refer the amendment for consideration at Step 4 to the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables at its next session in the light of government comments to be obtained at Step 3.
Inclusion of Contaminants Provision in Standards
251. In connection with the proposal recorded above for the revision of a Step 9 standard the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Additives pointed out that different Commodity Committees dealt differently with the question of contaminants in the standards they were elaborating. He further drew attention to the fact that in the standards elaborated in the first years of activity of the Codex Alimentarius Commission contaminants were not dealt with.
252. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Additives urged that all Commodity Committees give serious consideration to the desirability of including a contaminants section, in particular covering certain heavy metals, in every standard before them and that also Step 9 standards coming up for revision be included in these considerations.
253. The Commission agreed with the proposal and instructed Commodity Committees to request governments to provide information regarding contaminants for all products for which standards were being elaborated. This would allow for provisions for maximum levels of contaminants to be proposed which would subsequently be considered by the Codex Committee on Food Additives.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
254. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the U.S.A.
JOINT ECE/CODEX ALIMENTARIUS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON STANDARDIZATION OF FRUIT JUICES
255. The Commission had before it the report of the Group of Experts (ALINORM 76/14) and government comments on the Draft Standards at Step 8 contained in ALINORM 76/42-Part IV and Add. 1, as well as comments by the United Kingdom on the changes to Step 9 standards proposed by the Group of Experts. The Chairman of the Joint Group of Experts, Prof. W. Pilnik, introduced the report.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Grape Juice at Step 8
256. The Commission had before it the above draft standard as contained in ALINORM 76/14, Appendix II, and noted that the delegation of Sweden, in its written comments, had expressed the opinion that the requirement for a minimum soluble solids content of 15° Brix (a) did not take into account acceptable products the natural soluble solids content of which was below this value and (b) would make the addition of water to juices with higher soluble solids than 15% possible. For these reasons, the delegation of Sweden had proposed that Section 2.1 should be redrafted without the inclusion of a minimum soluble solids requirement. The Commission thought that this matter should be considered by the Joint Group, but decided not to alter Section 2.1 at this time.
Status of the Standard
257. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Grape Juice, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
258. The Commission had before it the above two draft standards as contained in ALINORM 76/14, Appendices III and IV, respectively. The Commission noted that the delegation of Denmark had proposed, in their written comments, that a declaration of the amount of added sugars should be provided for in the standard. The Commission noted that this matter had been discussed by the Group of Experts and that a quantitative declaration of sugar content had not been thought necessary. The Commission decided, therefore, not to make any changes in this respect in the standard. However, the Commission agreed with the editorial amendment proposed by the delegation of the United Kingdom to change “sugar” to “sugars” in Section 8.8 of the Draft Standard for Sweetened Concentrated Labrusca Type Grape Juice. Furthermore, for the sake of consistency, the phrase concerning tartaric acid in Section 1.1 of the latter draft standard was changed by the commission as follows: “but is substantially free of crystals of salts of tartaric acid”.
259. The delegation of Poland reiterated its opposition to the provision in the section on contaminants and informed the Commission that recent work carried out in Poland showed that the levels of contaminants found in single strength and concentrated juices were comparable and that, therefore, it did not appear proper to provide for the same maximum levels for contaminants in the reconstituted juice as in the unreconstituted single strength juice. The Commission noted that the Group of Experts did not have adequate data on levels of contaminants in concentrated juices, on the basis of which maximum levels for contaminants in the concentrated juice itself could be established, and also noted that the question of contaminants remained under review.
Status of Standards
260. The Commission adopted, as Recommended Standards, the Draft Standard for Concentrated Grape Juice and the Draft Standard for Sweetened Concentrated Labrusca Type Grape Juice at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Pineapple Juice at Step 8
261. The Commission had before it the above standard as contained in ALINORM 76/14, Appendix V. The Commission noted the written comments of the delegation of Sweden concerning Section 2.1 dealing with the soluble solids content of pineapple juice, but, as in the case of grape juice, decided not to make any changes to that Section (see para 256).
262. Considerable discussion took place on Section 4.1 concerning the provisional maximum level for tin of 150 mg/kg. This maximum level (reduced from the 250 mg/kg provided for in the standard) had been referred back to the Group of Experts by the Codex Committee on Food Additives (ALINORM 76/12) for consideration. However, the Group of Experts had not met between the session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and the Eleventh Session of the Commission and, therefore, new comments by the Group of Experts on the level of 150 mg/kg were not available. During the discussions it was pointed out that, in the absence of adequate toxicological evidence, there was no agreed view as to whether or not either 250 mg/kg or 150 mg/kg represented a hazard to health.
263. The maximum level of 150 mg/kg for tin proposed by the Group of Experts met with strong opposition by a large number of delegations representing mainly producing countries, as, in their view, existing evidence supported a maximum level of 250 mg/kg. In their opinion, a maximum level of 150 mg/kg would result in a significant proportion of canned pineapple juice moving in trade not meeting the requirements of the standard in respect of tin content. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the presence of tin from a technological point of view had certain advantages. These delegations, therefore, proposed that the original maximum level of 250 mg/kg be reinstated into the standard.
264. The delegations of Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland were of the opinion that the question of tin should be referred back to the Group of Experts for reconsideration, especially, as neither of the proposed maximum levels (250 mg/kg or 150 mg/kg) had been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives. It was pointed out that natural pineapple juice did not contain tin and that the question, therefore, related to the suitability of tinned containers for packing pineapple juice.
265. On the basis of the above discussion, the Commission decided to reinstate the original maximum level of 250 mg/kg into the Draft Standard for Pineapple Juice and referred it to the Codex Committee on Food Additives for endorsement. The delegations of Belgium and Poland were opposed to this procedure. The delegation of France recommended that the question of tin and tinned containers should be dealt with as a general problem.
Status of the Standard
266. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Pineapple Juice at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Proposed Draft Standard for Non-Pulpy Blackcurrant Nectar at Step 5
267. The Commission had before it the above standard as contained in ALINORM 76/14, Appendix VI, and noted that the pulpy nectars had been included in the general standard. For this reason, the Group of Experts had considered it necessary to develop an individual standard for the non-pulpy product. The Commission also noted that, for technological reasons, non-pulpy blackcurrant nectar could not be packed in simple tinned containers and that the matter of tin content was being given particular attention by the Group of Experts.
Status of the Standard
268. The Commission decided that the Draft Standard for Non-pulpy Blackcurrant Nectar should be advanced to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Amendments to Step 9 Standards
269. The Commission had before it Appendix VIII to ALINORM 76/14 containing amendments proposed by the Group of Experts to standards at Step 9 of the Procedure and comments of the delegation of the United Kingdom on these proposed amendments, as well as additional amendments proposed by the United Kingdom (ALINORM 76/39-Add. 1). In introducing this subject, the Chairman of the Group of Experts informed the Commission that some of the proposed amendments were consequential to changes which had been made to standards at earlier steps in the Codex Procedure, while others were the result of oversight or were editorial improvements. In addition, some additional changes had been proposed by the delegation of the United Kingdom as contained in Part B of ALINORM 76/39-Add. 1, some of which were consequential or editorial in nature, while others required consideration by the Group of Experts.
270. The Commission adopted all the changes proposed by the Group of Experts contained in Appendix VIII of ALINORM 76/14 in conformity with the new accelerated procedure for the amendment of Step 9 standards (see para 101) and requested the Secretariat to issue appropriate corrigenda for the standards indicated in Part A of document ALINORM 76/39-Add.1.
271. The delegation of Norway was of the opinion that the processing aids provided for in the standard for apple juice and concentrated apple juice should be listed separately from the additives. The Secretariat undertook to make the necessary editorial changes in this respect.
272. As regards the amendments proposed by the delegation of the United Kingdom, the Chairman of the Group of Experts pointed out that the amendments concerning carbon dioxide (para B.4 of ALINORM 76/39-Add.1) and sulphur dioxide (para B.5 of ALINORM 76/39-Add.1) were not editorial and should be examined by the Group of Experts. With the agreement of the delegation of the United Kingdom, the Commission referred these points to the Group of Experts but adopted the other editorial amendments (paras B.1, B.2, B.3, B.6, B.7 and B.8 of ALINORM 76/39-Add.1) in conformity with the new accelerated procedure (see para 101). The Secretariat was requested to include the above changes in the corrigendum to be issued.
JOINT ECE/CODEX ALIMENTARIUS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON STANDARDIZATION OF QUICK FROZEN FOODS
273. The Commission had before it the reports of the Ninth and Tenth Sessions of the Joint Group of Experts (ALINORM 76/25 and ALINORM 76/25A) and government comments on the draft standards at Step 8, contained in ALINORM 76/42-Part II and Addenda 1 and 2. The Chairman of the Joint Group of Experts, Mr. T. Van Hiele (Netherlands) introduced the reports and outlined work done by the Group on standards and codes of practice for quick frozen foods.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Peaches at Step 8
274. The Commission had before it the above standard which was contained in Appendix III of ALINORM 76/25. The Chairman of the Joint Group of Experts reviewed the government comments at Step 8 on the Draft Standard. He drew the Commission's attention to a discussion at the Tenth Session of the Group of Experts concerning the question of styles, on the basis of the report of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (see paras 23–25, ALINORM 76/25A). As a consequence, the Group of Experts had agreed to add a general provision to the styles section of some draft standards at early steps in the Codex Procedure, in order to permit the marketing of new styles of products in conformity with all other requirements of the standard. It had also agreed to make a consequential amendment to the labelling section, to ensure that these new styles, not specifically identified in the standard, would be subject to analogous labelling requirements as regards the name of the product. The Group of Experts had requested governments to comment on the need to include such a general provision on other styles in Step 9 standards and in the standards for quick frozen peaches and bilberries.
275. The Commission agreed that this question represented a general issue which probably affected all Codex Commodity Standards containing a provision on styles. However, it considered that the provision on other styles was not for general and automatic application to all Codex standards but should be considered by Codex Committees on a commodity by commodity basis. The general provision on other styles would be applicable in those cases where the format concerning styles adopted by the Tenth Session of the Commission, on the recommendation of the Executive Committee, was too restrictive and where the introduction of a certain flexibility into the styles section was justified. The format adopted by the Tenth Session of the Commission is as follows (see paras 185– 191, ALINORM 74/44):
“The product shall be prescribed in one of the following styles:
276. The Commission, in agreeing to the use of the general provision on other styles, confirmed that its action was not a reversal of the decision made at its Tenth Session, but rather should be viewed as a derogation to meet special circumstances associated with the standards to which the new provision was being applied.
277. As regards the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Peaches, the Commission agreed to the inclusion of the general provision for other styles and that section 2.4.3 be amended accordingly. The Commission also agreed that section 6.1 dealing with the name of the food should be amended, as a consequence of having amended section 2.4.3. The text to be used was that given in the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Spinach. The Commission also agreed to delete the words “following the longitudinal axis” from the definition of “halves”, (section 2.4.3(b), thus including products cut along the equatorial line under the style designation “halves”. The delegation of the U.S.A. indicated that it was opposed to such an amendment being adopted in the Commission itself.
Status of the Standard
278. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Peaches, with the above amendments, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Bilberries at Step 8
279. The Commission had before it the above Draft Standard as contained in Appendix IV, ALINORM 76/25. In the light of the conclusions in paras 275–276 above, the Commission agreed that the general provision for other styles was not applicable to this product.
Status of the Standard
280. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Bilberries at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Spinach at Step 8
281. The Commission had before it the above Draft Standard as contained in Appendix I, ALINORM 76/25A. It noted that the Group of Experts had included the general provision for other styles and the consequential labelling provision concerning the name of the product. The delegation of the U.K. reserved its position concerning the minimum requirement for 5.5% m/m salt-free dry matter included in sub-section 3.2.2 (h).
Status of the Standard
282. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Spinach at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
283. The Commission had before it the above Draft Code of Practice as contained in Appendix VII, ALINORM 76/25 and changes thereto adopted at the Tenth Session of the Group of Experts and given in para 46 of ALINORM 76/25A. In introducing the Draft Code, the Chairman of the Group of Experts drew the Commission's attention to a collaborative study which had been organized by the Group of Experts and which involved a number of representative quick frozen foods, in an attempt to get a better insight into product quality in relation to time/temperature conditions and other relevant details. He pointed out that the Draft Code represented the best that could be achieved, given existing conditions and information available. It was expected that the Code would be reviewed in the light of further experience and information.
Section 4.2
284. In the opinion of the delegation of the U.S.A., the recommendation for a maximum variation of air temperature of 2°C would be difficult to achieve and was furthermore not appropriate, as this variation was originally intended for product temperature variation. The Commission noted that the recommendation was worded as an ideal to be aimed at.
Section 5.6 and 6.3 as amended (see ALINORM 76/25A)
285. The delegation of Sweden was of the opinion that the maximum product temperature of -18°C was to be regarded as an ideal to be aimed at, and considered that the proviso that the product temperature should, in any case, not rise above -12° in the warmest pack should be included in a footnote, in order to indicate that such a rise be regarded as an exceptional situation which may be tolerated. The delegations of France, Japan and Iran held a similar view and considered that sections 5.6 and 6.3 should aim at -18°C, without further reference to -12°C in the warmest pack. The delegations of Belgium and Italy considered that the temperature in the warmest pack should not rise above -15°C. The delegation of Norway agreed with the proposals of Sweden.
Section 5.1
286. In the opinion of the delegations of Iran, Japan and Senegal, the pre-cooling temperature of +10°C was too high.
Status of the Code of Practice
287. The Commission noted that the product quality depended not only on product temperature, including temperature fluctuation, but also on length of storage and that these questions were under study by the Group of Experts. It recognized that the Code of Practice represented the best that could be achieved given the existing circumstances, but agreed that the Code should be reviewed in five years time in the light of further information. The Secretariat was requested to so indicate in an introduction to the Code. As regards recommendations concerning product temperature in sections 5.6 and 6.3, the Commission agreed to insert a footnote indicating that these were subject to reconsideration prior to its 13th Session. With the above indications, the Commission adopted, as a Recommended Code of Practice, the Draft Code of Practice for Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Foods at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards and Codes of Practice.
Proposed Draft Standards for Quick Frozen Foods at Step 5
288. The Commission advanced the proposed draft standards for quick frozen blueberries, cauliflower, broccoli and leeks (Appendix V, ALINORM 76/25 and Appendices II, III and IV, ALINORM 76/25A) to Step 6 of the Codex Procedure. The delegation of France considered that, generally speaking, the paragraphs of these standards relating to defects included specifications that were too detailed.
Method for Checking Temperature of Quick Frozen Foods at Step 5
289. The Commission advanced the above method as contained in ALINORM 76/25A, Appendix VI, to Step 6 of the Codex Procedure. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany drew the Commission's attention to work in progress on methods for the measurement of the temperature of quick frozen foods.
Amendments to Standards at Step 9 of the Procedure
290. The Commission adopted the amendments proposed by the Group of Experts as given in ALINORM 76/36 (Conference Room Document) and also agreed that the sections dealing with styles in the Step 9 standards should be brought into line with the Step 8 standards adopted as Recommended Standards at the present session.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON MEAT HYGIENE
291. The Commission had before it the Report of the Third Session (1974) of the Committee on Meat Hygiene (ALINORM 76/15) and government comments on the draft codes at Step 8 contained in ALINORM 76/42-Part VI + Add.1 (CRD) and Addendum. The reports were introduced by Mr. B.R. Mason (New Zealand) who acted as Rapporteur.
Consideration of Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Meat at Step 8 (ALINORM 76/15, Appendix II)
292. The Rapporteur, in his introduction, pointed out that in the course of the three sessions of the Committee agreement had been reached on most issues. From the written comments received it appeared, however, that some differences still existed with regard to a few items. Representatives of the countries concerned had met earlier during this session of the Commission and had succeeded in finding an appropriate form of wording acceptable to the parties concerned. He thanked the representatives for their work.
293. In discussing the Code, reference was made to the written comments. Amendments agreed to by the Commission and the principal points made were as follows:
Para 9 : “Edible offal” - the definition was revised to read as in the Code of Hygienic Practice for Processed Meat Products (PMP). Substitute “as have been” for “as may be” (PMP, para 8).
Para 15 : “Meat”. The delegation of Argentina indicated that it was opposed to the wording of the present definition of meat, which was restricted to meat from mammals slaughtered in an abattoir and which, in its opinion, would be an obstacle to the substantial and still increasing export of game which Argentina and other countries had established.
In order also to cover game, the delegation of Argentina held the view that the definition of “Meat” should be amended, so that it did not refer only to mammals slaughtered in an abattoir. It proposed that the definition should read “Meat means the skeletal muscles and connective tissues of a mammal fit for human consumption”.
The Commission did not amend the definition. It further noted that, for the next session of the Committee on Processed Meat Products, Argentina, in collaboration with the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy, would draft a working document dealing with the hygienic aspects of game meat as an Appendix to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Processed Meat Products. At the time when such an Appendix would be elaborated, the Commission would have to consider its possible attraction into the Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Meat.
Sub-section V.A heading: The inclusion of “Registration” in the heading similar to the PMP Code was discussed and, in conjunction therewith, the reinstatement of a provision requiring approval and registration of abattoirs and establishments by the controlling authority (PMP, para 25). It was pointed out that the definitions of “abattoir” and “establishment” referred to approval and registration by the controlling authority. The Commission decided not to make any amendment.
Paras 23 (e) and (f) : It was noted that the present wording of the two provisions and the related footnote were the result of extensive discussions in the Committee on Meat Hygiene. Some divergent opinions with regard to these items were, however, expressed in the written comments received. The Commission noted with satisfaction that the representatives of the different groups had discussed the matter and had agreed to an addition to the present footnote to read: “However, the controlling authority may approve other systems in the light of technological developments which will ensure that contamination is prevented to an equivalent extent.” Following some discussion, the Commission accepted the proposal.
It was pointed out that the agreement reached on the provisions in question was an illustration of the spirit of cooperation prevailing in the work of Codex Committees. Special research has been undertaken to substantiate claims made by certain delegations and this had significantly contributed to convincing the experts in other delegations that technology adapted to conditions prevailing in some countries should be considered on its own merits. The Commission agreed to substitute “cleansing” for “rinsing” in para 23(e).
Para 23 (g) : In order to avoid any misinterpretation, the provision was expanded to read: “If necessary separate facilities for the preparation of edible fats and if they are not removed daily from the premises facilities for their storage”.
The delegation of Uruguay expressed its reservations with regard to the amendment.
Para 23 (j) : There was no discussion on this provision. However, the delegation of the U.S.A., supported by the delegations of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, at the end of the deliberations of the Commission, made a statement concerning 23(j) (see para 295).
Para 24 (c) : A rewording of the provision to differentiate between the operation of packing of meat in primary wrappers and packing in outer cartons was accepted by the Commission.
“Room, temperature controlled, for boning and cutting, physically separated from other rooms. Boning, cutting and primary wrapping should be separated from packaging operations.
However, meat may be packed in the room where it is boned, cut up and wrapped, provided precautions acceptable to the controlling authority are taken to prevent contamination of the product.”
The delegation of France proposed to add to the first sentence “(in cartons or cases)” to make clear, beyond doubt, what was meant by “packaging”. No amendment was made.
Para 25: A change was made consequential to the text contained in paragraphs 39(e) and (f) and in line with PMP, para 27, by inserting after “chilling room” the terms “freezing room, freezer store”.
Para 26 : Substitute 26(m) for 27(m).
Para 32 : A proposal for a revised text clarifying the intent of the provision was agreed to:
“No containers, wooden crates, wooden boxes or cartons should be assembled in the parts of an abattoir or establishment where animals are slaughtered, or dressed, or where meat is cut up or boned, prepared, handled, packed or stored. No containers, equipment or utensils should be stored in any part of an abattoir or establishment where animals are slaughtered, or dressed, or where meat is cut up or boned, prepared, handled, packed or stored unless required for immediate use in that place.”
Para 36 (b) : The delegation of Italy stated that, in its view, in the provision for Hygiene and Health of Personnel, a statement should be included to the effect that the examination of personnel should take place at least annually.
Para 37 (d) : The Commission took note of the observations of the World Federation for the Protection of Animals on this provision.
The Commission agreed that the provisions in the Appendix to the Code under the heading “Mobile Slaughterhouses” should be incorporated in the Code as part F, the paragraphs to be renumbered 46 and 47 respectively.
Status of the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Meat
294. The Commission adopted, with the amendments listed above, the Draft Code of Practice for Fresh Meat at Step 8 of the Procedure as a Recommended Code. The delegation of France stated it was not opposed to the adoption of the Code but it considered that parts of the text could be expressed in more precise terms.
295. The United States delegation indicated that it had received assurance that it was not the intention of paragraph 23 (j) to prevent slaughter on the main slaughter floor of animals which, under the procedures set down in paragraphs 21 and 23 of the Code of Ante-mortem and Post-mortem Inspection of Slaughter Animals, were, in the opinion of the supervisory veterinary, fit for slaughter on that floor. With assurances of the correctness of that interpretation, the US did not oppose the adoption of this Code at Step 8.
296. The Commission noted that only two written observations had been received, the substance of which had already been discussed by the Committee.
Status of the Draft Code of Ante-mortem and Post-mortem Inspection of Slaughter Animals
297. The Commission adopted the Draft Code of Ante-mortem and Post-mortem Inspection of Slaughter Animals as a Recommended Code at Step 8 of the Procedure.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
298. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of New Zealand.
Adjournment of the Committee
299. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene had now completed its current work and, therefore, agreed that the Committee should adjourn sine die.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON PROCESSED MEAT PRODUCTS
300. The Commission had before it the Report of the Eighth Session (1975) of the Committee on Processed Meat Products (ALINORM 76/16) and government comments on the draft standards and code at Step 8 contained in ALINORM 76/42-Part VII and Add. 1 and 2 (CRD). The report was introduced by Dr. Viggo Enggaard (Denmark), chairman of the Committee, who acted as Rapporteur.
Consideration of Draft Standard for Canned Corned Beef at Step 8 (ALINORM 76/16, Appendix II)
301. The Rapporteur, in his introduction, reminded the Commission that the present standard had been brought to its attention at Step 8 on two previous occasions.
302. The Commission agreed to a proposal of the delegations of Argentina and Urugauay to delete the word “tipo” from the title in the Spanish version of the standard. With regard to the other written observations received, the Rapporteur stated that the various matters raised had been discussed fully at the meetings of the Committee. He further pointed out that the sections on additives, hygiene and labelling in the standard had all been endorsed or temporarily endorsed by the respective Codex General Subject Committees.
303. The Commission noted a statement of the delegation of Austria that it held the view that all standards for processed meat products should contain provisions for the minimum content of myosin and for a maximum percentage of collagen expressed as connective tissue protein related to the total meat protein.
304. The Commission was informed that at the next session of the Committee the question of collagen-free protein in meat would be considered.
305. The delegation of the United Kingdom pointed out that, among the additives listed in the standard, there was no provision for nitrate but only for nitrite. As in recent years it had become apparent that small quantities of nitrite might be converted to nitrate, the delegation proposed to list nitrate in the additives section. The Rapporteur stated that in addition to the nitrate originating from nitrite, there could also be traces of nitrate present from e.g. water used in the manufacture of the product.
306. It was noted that, in a footnote against the proposed maximum level for nitrite calculated on the total net content of the final product, it was stated that in the light of further information based on current research the level might be reviewed.
307. The Commission briefly considered a proposal to relate the footnote also to any nitrate present in the food, but decided that this question was of a general nature, as in the section only intentionally added substances were listed and no exception should be made in this particular standard.
308. The Chairman of the Food Additives Committee referred to a related discussion earlier during the session of the Commission during which it was stressed that Commodity Committees should pay due attention to the conversion of additives during processing and storage. He further emphasized the importance that should be attached to the selection of methods of analysis for the additive and its derivatives as the value of the standards depended to a considerable degree on the presence of these methods. Close collaboration with international bodies, e.g. ISO and AOAC, was stressed. He pointed out that for the substances listed in the additives section the maximum levels set indicated acceptable levels in the final product.
Status of the Standard for Canned Corned Beef
309. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Canned Corned Beef, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Consideration of Standard for Luncheon Meat at Step 8 (ALINORM 76/16, Appendix V)
310. The Rapporteur informed the Commission that all the written amendments received related to issues discussed by the Committee during its sessions.
311. A number of delegations stated that in their countries the use in meat products of certain additives, in particular erythrosine, was not allowed. It was pointed out that erythrosine was permitted to be used only in the product with binder. The observer from ASMO proposed the inclusion of a provision for date-marking as especially high summer temperatures (up to 50°C) influenced the acceptability of the product. The delegation of the United Kingdom pointed out that their remarks concerning nitrates and nitrites (para 305 above) also applied to this product. The Commission did not make any amendments to the standard.
Status of the Standard for Luncheon Meat
312. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Luncheon Meat at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
313. In discussing the code reference was made to the written comments. Amendments agreed to by the Commission and the principal points made were as follows:
Note: A note similar to the one introducing the Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Meat (FM) was introduced: “In the preparation of this Code recognition has been given to the need to avoid precluding the adoption of new technical developments provided these are consistent with the hygienic production of wholesome meat and meat products.”
Para 10 “Hermetically sealed”: It was proposed to delete in the definition the qualification that a hermetically sealed container should be impermeable “to gas”. No change was made.
Paras 12 and 14: The delegation of the Netherlands pointed out that the definition of “Inspector” (12) read in conjunction with the definition of “Meat” (14) implied that all foods containing meat, irrespective of the quantity of meat in the food would be subject to supervision by a veterinarian. It held the view that this was, in practice, not feasible, nor indeed necessary when products contained only limited amounts of meat and reserved its position with regard to these definitions. The Commission noted the view of the Netherlands delegation but decided not to alter the text in this respect. It was pointed out that the essential requirement should be that the ingoing meat had been subjected to and passed by an inspector.
sub-section IVA - Heading: During the deliberations of the Commission on the equivalent heading in the Fresh Meat Code, it had been noted that the Meat Hygiene Committee had deleted the reference to “Registration” and consequently also the provision requiring approval and registration of establishments by the controlling authority (see also para 293 of this Report). The Commission discussed whether in the present Code similar deletions should be made, but agreed not to make any change.
Para 28 (c): The Commission agreed to delete the reference to a specific maximum temperature and to revise the provision to read as follows: “The temperature in rooms for boning out and trimming should be controlled and held suitably low unless cleaning practices are carried out as provided in sub-section IV.C.34(d).”
Para 28 (i): It was agreed to expand the third sentence to read: “In rooms in which meat and meat products are prepared, processed, handled or packed windows should be fitted …”
Para 37 - “Hygiene and Health of Personnel”: It was agreed to delete the reference to “abattoirs” in sub-paragraphs 37(b), (c), (d), (e), (i) and (k).
para 45 - Transportation: A provision regarding possible breakdown of the cold chain during storage and transport was included (cf. FM 41(g)):
“Every effort should be made to prevent changes in temperature of frozen meat and meat products at any time during storage and transport but where accidental thawing takes place, the meat or meat products should be examined and evaluated by the inspector before any further step is taken.”
Section E - Sanitation Control Programme - It was pointed out that the identical section in the Fresh Meat Code was headed “Programme for Veterinary Supervision and Hygiene Control”. After some discussion it was decided not to make a change.
Annex A (e) : The word “visibly” was inserted before the word “effective”.
Status of the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Processed Meat Products
314. The Commission adopted the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Processed Meat Products at Step 8 of the Procedure, with the amendments mentioned above, as a Recommended Code. The Commission expressed particular satisfaction at the results achieved by the Codex Committee on Processed Meat Products.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
315. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Processed Meat Products should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Denmark.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
316. The Commission confirmed that the Codex Committee on Meat should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON FISH AND FISHERY PRODUCTS
317. The Commission had before it the reports of the Ninth (1974) and Tenth (1975) sessions of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, as contained in ALINORM 76/18 and ALINORM 76/18A respectively, two codes of practice as contained in ALINORM 76/13A and Corrigendum (English version only), and government comments on the various documents (ALINORM 76/42-Part VIII and Addendum 1). The reports were introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Dr. O. Braekkan (Norway), who acted as Rapporteur.
318. The Rapporteur proposed the following amendments, which were either of an editorial or consequential nature, to the draft standard as adopted by the Committee at its Tenth Session and as amended by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling at its 11th Session:
Sub-section 2.2 - Substitute “under such conditions” for “at a low temperature” (see ALINORM 76/18A, para 24)
Sub-section 3.2.1 (c) - Substitute “container” for “pack”.
Section 5 - Amend title and provision as in the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Hake (see ALINORM 76/18A, Appendix II).
Sub-section 6.6 - Amend to read: “… to identify the producing factory and the lot”, the rest of the sentence to be deleted. (See ALINORM 76/22A, para 44). The Commission agreed to the above amendments.
319. It was suggested that a requirement be included in the process definition that the temperature of the product after freezing should not exceed -18°C. The Commission decided not to change the text. The delegation of France proposed certain changes of an editorial nature in the French text of sub-sections 2.1 (b) and 2.2 as in the written comments of France. The Secretariat took note of and undertook to make the necessary editorial corrections. The French delegation reiterated, as a statement applying to all standards, its position with regard to the declaration of the country of origin, which was that such declaration should be mandatory.
320. The question was raised whether defect tables, if included in standards for fishery products, should be regarded as optional or mandatory. The Rapporteur pointed out that the Committee considered this question on a case by case basis and that the need for defect tables, as well as the matter of whether they should be optional or mandatory, depended on the nature of the product.
321. The Commission was informed that with regard to date-marking the Committee would await the finalization of the guidelines for date marking by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling before discussing this matter further.
Status of the Standard for Quick Frozen Fillets of Flat Fish
322. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Fillets of Flat Fish, with the above-listed amendments, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Canned Crab Meat at Step 8 (ALINORM 76/18, Appendix IV)
323. The Rapporteur proposed a number of changes to which the Commission agreed:
| Sub-section 2.3 | - | Insertion of a new provision for “other presentation” (see ALINORM 76/18A, para 65). |
| Sub-section 5.1 | - | Add a reference to the Code of Practice for Canned Fish (CAC/RCP 1976/10). |
| Sub-section 7.2.7 | - | Insert new labelling provision covering other presentations consequential to addition of 2.3 above (see ALINORM 76/22A, paras 33 & 38). |
| Sub-section 7.7 | - | Amend to read:“… to identify the producing factory and the lot”. (See ALINORM 76/22A, paras 40 and 44). |
Status of the Draft Standard for Canned Crab Meat
324. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Canned Crab Meat with the amendments listed above, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
325. The Rapporteur referred to the written comments of Bangladesh and stated that the species and families of shrimps and prawns proposed for inclusion in the standard were already covered, with one exception, Macrobrachium, which was a freshwater shrimp. It was decided not to extend the list of species. The following changes were agreed to by the Commission:
| Sub-section 2.3.1.5 | - | Substitute “(> 70 per lb)” and “(≤ 70 per lb)” for “(> 70 lbs)” and “ (≤ 70 lbs)”. |
| Sub-section 6.1.2 | - | Add a labelling provision covering “other presentations” (see ALINORM 76/22A, para 41) |
| Sub-section 6.3 | - | Revise to read “When the shrimps or prawns are glazed and the cooking and/or glazing water contains additives these shall be declared”. |
| Sub-section 6.6.2 | - | Revise to read: “When the product undergoes further processing…” (see ALINORM 76/22A, para 43) |
| Sub-section 6.7 | - | Amend to read: “… to identify the producing factory and the lot”. (see ALINORM 76/22A, para 44) |
| Annex C | - | Amend as proposed by the U.S.A. in written comments. |
326. It was pointed out that in the body of the standard for Jams and Jellies, there was a clause excluding from the standard certain products the designation of which included the word “jam” but which did not conform to the provisions of the standard. A similar kind of provision affecting Dublin bay prawns was contained in the present standard in the form of an appendix to the standard. The Commission requested that the general question of the use of appendices to standards to cover questions of this kind be covered in the paper on somewhat analogous matters which the Secretariat had been requested to prepare for the next session of the Codex Committee on General Principles.
327. The delegation of France indicated that it was opposed to the inclusion of certain of the additives listed in the food additives section. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Food Additives would review this section. The delegation of the United Kingdom drew attention to a certain inconsistency in the way the provision on declaration of country of origin (6.2) appeared in different standards. It held the view that the declaration of country of origin should be optional, depending on whether or not the omission of such declaration would mislead or deceive the consumer. The Commission decided to leave the text of the standard on this matter unaltered.
Status of the Standard for Quick Frozen Shrimps or Prawns
328. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Shrimps or Prawns with the amendments mentioned above, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
329. The Commission considered at Step 5 of the Procedure the above-mentioned proposed draft standards and decided to advance them to Step 6.
330. The Rapporteur expressed appreciation to the French authorities which had hosted a working group in Nantes on this subject, which had in turn greatly facilitated the subsequent deliberations of the Committee. The working group had resolved the controversies existing with regard to the defect table for sardines and sardine-type products.
331. The Commission was informed that these Codes, which had been developed by the FAO Fisheries Department, had been thoroughly studied by the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, in collaboration with the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene. The Commission noted that the combined efforts had been fruitful and it further noted with satisfaction that the FAO Fisheries Department had further codes in preparation. The Commission expressed appreciation for this continued work.
Status of the Draft Codes of Practice for Fresh Fish and for Canned Fish
332. The Commission adopted the Draft Codes of Practice for Fresh Fish and for Canned Fish at Step 5. The Commission concurred with the recommendation of the two Committees to omit Steps 6 and 7 and adopted the two codes at Step 8 of the Procedure as Recommended Codes.
333. The Commission was informed that this code, after having been developed by an Expert Consultation convened by the FAO Fisheries Department, had been revised by the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, which had advanced it to Step 5. The Commission noted that this code of practice would still have to be reviewed by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene. It was agreed to advance the Code to Step 6 of the Procedure for consideration by the Food Hygiene Committee, after which it would be submitted to a future session of the Commission.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
334. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX. 10 that the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Norway.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON FOODS FOR SPECIAL DIETARY USES
335. The Commission had before it the reports of the Eighth and Ninth Sessions of the above Committee (ALINORM 76/26 and ALINORM 76/26A), containing three standards for foods for infants and children at Step 8 of the Procedure and government comments thereon, as contained in ALINORM 76/42-Part IX and Addenda 1 and 2. The reports were introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Prof. R. Franck, who outlined briefly the work of the Committee. He informed the Commission that the Draft Standards for Infant Formula, Canned Baby Foods, and Cereal-based Foods for Infants and Children had been finalized by the Committee and were, in his opinion, in the light of current knowledge available, the best that could be achieved. The section on methods of analysis had also been finalized and endorsed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Infant Formula at Step 8
336. The Commission had before it the above standard as contained in ALINORM 76/26A, Appendix III. It was noted that there was an error in Section 5.1 and that it should read, as shown in the report of the Codex Committee on Food Additives. The Secretariat undertook to correct Section 5.1 accordingly.
337. The delegation of the United Kingdom stated that it was not entirely satisfied with a number of the provisions contained in the standard for infant formula. As human milk was, without doubt, the best food for infant feeding, the compositional aspects of infant formulae should be based on values found following analysis of breast milk; but human milk would not meet the requirements of the standard on at least eight points. The standard for infant formula should, moreover, include a statement encouraging breast feeding. Furthermore, as children above the age of six months required other food in addition to substitutes for human milk, the standard should include a warning concerning supplementary feeding of infants over six months of age. The delegation of the United Kingdom also reserved its position concerning some compositional aspects of the standard for Infant Formula. In view of the rapid progress of research in infant feeding and in the compositional and other aspects of human milk, the delegation of the United Kingdom was of the opinion that the Standard for Infant Formula should be kept under review. While not opposing the Draft Standard being adopted at Step 8, it informed the Commission that the United Kingdom would not be in a position to take action on a Recommended Standard for Infant Formula.
338. The delegation of France supported the statements made by the delegation of the United Kingdom and questioned whether chemically modified starches should be given to infants of less than three months of age. The delegations of France and the Netherlands also questioned the suitability of casein as a reference protein.
339. The delegation of Switzerland was of the opinion that the minimum requirement of 60 μg copper was too high. It was further of the opinion that a preamble to the standard should draw attention to the nutritional points outlined by the delegation of the United Kingdom. The delegation of Senegal supported the statement made by the delegation of the United Kingdom and was of the opinion that the draft standard should be returned to the Committee for further consideration.
340. The delegation of Italy was of the opinion that the standard should take more into account infant and child nutrition from birth to the age of 12 months and also had reservations concerning the levels of Vitamin D provided for. Furthermore, it was of the opinion that the standard should provide for carbohydrate content and that the starches modified by phosphates should be deleted as they were technologically not indispensable.
341. The delegation of Poland was of the opinion that maximum levels for the various nutritive components as well as microbiological provisions should be provided for. The delegation of Gabon was of the opinion that the standard should be more discriminating as regards the age of the infant and that the list of additives was too long. Furthermore, it was of the opinion that the name of the product was not sufficiently specific and that the declarations provided for in Sections 10.1.3 and 10.1.4 should be mandatory. The delegation of Gabon also expressed preference for a mandatory declaration of expiry date.
342. The delegation of Thailand made reference to a meeting in Singapore sponsored by UNICEF which had dealt with problems of infant feeding and was of the opinion that the conclusions of that meeting should be taken into account. The Commission was informed that the Draft Standard for Infant Formula was not acceptable to that country. The FAO Secretariat pointed out that the draft standard attempted to define a product which could be regarded as a substitute for human milk and that broader questions of infant nutrition appeared to be a matter for those concerned with the problem of nutrition and child care. Section 10.9.2 of the standard served as a warning in this respect.
343. The Commission agreed that the Draft Standard for Infant Formula represented an acceptable international opinion given present knowledge. It also agreed, on the recommendation of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, that Section 10.8.1 should be amended to require the declaration of minimum durability until such time as the question of date marking as a general issue had been finalized.
344. The Commission also agreed that, when issuing the standard for acceptance by governements, a preamble should be included by the Secretariat indicating that the standard would be reviewed in the light of further knowledge and also indicating the policy of FAO/WHO concerning infant nutrition, including a statement that, where possible, breast feeding should be preferred.
Status of the Standard
345. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Infant Formula, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Canned Baby Foods at Step 8
346. The Commission had before it the above standard as contained in ALINORM 76/26A, Appendix III. It was noted that in Section 3.1.3 the maximum level for sodium should read 200 mg/kg and that in Section 9.3.2 reference should be made to Section 3.1.2 and not to 3.3. It was agreed to amend Section 9.8.1 to require the declaration of date of minimum durability, as in the case of Infant Formula.
347. The delegations of France and Italy were of the opinion that the standard was lacking in nutritional aspects and that the section dealing with particle size should be more detailed. They were furthermore of the opinion that the maximum level for sodium was excessive and that the use of some of the additives was not justified.
Status of the Standard
348. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Canned Baby Foods, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Cereal-based Foods for Infants and Children at Step 8
349. The Commission had before it the above standard as contained in ALINORM 76/26A, Appendix IV. The Commission agreed, on the basis of the advice of the Chairman of the Committee, that the flavours in Section 5.4 should be expressed on an “as consumed basis”. On the recommendation of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, the Commission agreed to change Section 9.2.2 to read “The specific name shall be declared for ingredients and food additives. In addition, appropriate class names for these ingredients and additives may be included on the label”. It was further agreed to amend Section 9.8.1 to require the declaration of date of minimum durability, as in the case of Infant Formula. The Commission also agreed with the Codex Committee on Food Labelling to substitute for Section 9.3.2 the corresponding provision in the Draft Standard for Canned Baby Foods. The delegation of Thailand informed the Commission that the Standard for Cereal-based Foods for Infants was not acceptable to that country and that a standard covering infants from three months onwards had been established in that country, with specifications for such nutritional factors as protein and essential fatty acids. The delegations of France and Italy were of the opinion that the standard should be more discriminating as regards age and should also provide for minimum protein content. The dextrinization of starch products intended for infants under four months was also essential. There were other compositional aspects which needed looking into. The delegations of France and Italy were of the opinion that the standard should be further revised by the Committee.
350. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Cereal-based Foods for Infants and Children at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Methods of Analysis for Foods for Infants and Children
351. The Chairman of the Committee informed the Commission that the section on methods of analysis for foods for infants and children had been finalized by the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses and endorsed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling. The actual text of the section on methods of analysis had been drawn up by the Secretariat and had been verified by the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses and of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling. The Commission requested the Secretariat to ensure that this section was included in the standards to be sent to governments for acceptance.
Modified Starches to be included in the Draft Standard for Canned Baby Foods
352. The Commission was informed that two of the modified starches in the standard for Canned Baby Foods, i.e. distarch glycerol and acetylated distarch glycerol, had been included in the above standard by the Ninth Session of the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses. Because of the scheduling of Codex sessions, the Codex Committee on Food Additives had not been able to consider these substances. The representative of WHO informed the Commission that the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives would reconsider the question of modified starches and other additives in relation to infants. The Commission agreed that, when endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives, the above two modified starches should be included in the Recommended Standard for Canned Baby Foods.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
353. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
354. The Commission had before it the Report of the 17th Session of the above Committee (CX 5/70, 17th Session, April 1975) and ALINORM 76/43. Mr. F.S. Anderson (United Kingdom), Chairman of the Committee, acted as Rapporteur.
Procedure for Elaboration of Milk and Milk Product Standards
355. The Commission was informed that the Committee at its 18th Session (Rome, September 1976) would consider the implications, in relation to its work on the Code of Principles, of the inclusion of a new step and a revision of the final step in the Procedure for the Elaboration of Milk and Milk Product Standards, as had been adopted by the Tenth Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
Progress at Seventeenth Session
356. One standard - for yogurt and sweetened yogurt - had reached Step 7 of the Procedure for Elaboration of Milk and Milk Product Standards. Further progress was made on draft standards for Flavoured Yogurt, for Cream, for Edible Acid Casein, for Edible Caseinates and for Extra Hard Grating Cheese. These were at Step 5 and were expected to reach the stage of recommended standards at the Eighteenth Session. The revised General Standard for Cheese (Step 5) should also make further progress at the Eighteenth Session.
Hygienic Requirements for Milk and Milk Products
357. Having developed standards for the most important milk products, the Committee had turned its attention to hygienic requirements for milk products and would be discussing a draft code of practice for dried milk which the delegation of Australia had offered to prepare. In this field, the Committee had agreed to proceed on the basis of need and demonstrated health hazards and would take into account available expert recommendations on microbiological standards and methodology. The Committee would look for advice as necessary from the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene.
358. At the next session the Committee would be considering products covered by Article 4 of the Code of Principles. For this, the Committee was indebted to Dr. F. Winkelmann of the Technical Secretariat for his work on Imitation Milk and Imitation Milk Products (AGA/MISC/76/2).
Labelling Provisions for Standard for Yogurt and Sweetened Yogurt (A-11(a))
359. The Commission noted that the labelling provisions of the yogurt standard (A-11(a)) had not been endorsed by the Committee on Food Labelling at its 9th Session (June 1974), due to the absence of a complete list of ingredients (ALINORM 74/22A, para 12). The Committee of Government Experts had considered this matter at its 17th Session (April 1975) and had revised the provision in accordance with the relevant provision in the Recommended International General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods.
360. After some discussion, the Commission unanimously endorsed the labelling section of the standard specifying, however, that this decision was taken exceptionally for a specific case and should not be regarded as a precedent. The delegations of Austria and France stated their reservations with regard to several other provisions in the standard.
361. The Commission noted a proposal from the delegation of the Netherlands for the use of special forms for assisting governments in notifying acceptances, similar to those in use for Recommended Codex Standards. In this connection, it was pointed out that a growing number of acceptances of milk and milk product standards were on the basis of the Acceptance Procedure laid down in the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius. The Commission further noted that the Committee would discuss the matter at its next session.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON EDIBLE ICES
362. The Commission had before it the report of the second session of the above Committee (ALINORM 76/11). Dr. G. Björkman (Sweden), Chairman of the Committee, acted as Rapporteur.
363. The Commission noted that the Committee had found it necessary to classify the edible ices with regard to the different possibilities of composition in altogether fifteen groups and subgroups. To avoid complications with the use in the English language of the word “icecream” as a general name for edible ices and also some traditional names in certain other languages, it was agreed by the Committee that any name customarily used in a country where the product was sold might be used, provided that the name was followed by a reference indicating the appropriate group and subgroup in the standard.
364. The Commission further noted that some proposed requirements on microbiological standards in the Hygiene section together with government comments on these would be considered by the Food Hygiene Committee at its next session in May this year. Some delegations referred to the rather extensive list of food additives provided for in the standard. The Rapporteur pointed out that the Committee would discuss the Food Additives section in detail at its next session. The suggestion was made that in the list of food additives a differentiation should be made on the basis of the compositional groups or even the subgroups of edible ices. The Commission thought that this was a good proposal and the Rapporteur undertook to study the feasibility of the proposal for further discussion at the next session of the Committee.
Status of the Draft Standard for Edible Ices and Ice Mixes
365. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard for Edible Ices and Ice Mixes at Step 5. The delegations of Belgium and France stated that they considered the advancement of the standard to Step 6 to be premature taking into account the number and the nature of still unresolved questions. The delegation of Poland held the view that the use of additives in the products covered by the standard was technologically not required.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
366. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Edible Ices should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Sweden.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON FATS AND OILS
Consideration of the Proposed Draft Standard for Low Fat Spreads at Step 5
367. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils informed the Commission that the Committee had decided to proceed with the elaboration of a standard for low fat spreads. The existing draft standard had been redrafted in accordance with the margarine standard and special points of interest were related, inter alia, to the designation of the product and the fat content. The delegation of Japan, supported on some points by the delegation of France, stated that in the view of its government, the product was not a simple fat, but a dietary food product with a low calorie content and a lot of food additives. In view of the special nature of the product, the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils should not continue its work on the standard. The Commission should consider in the first instance a justification for the development of standards for such products, and then decide whether the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils or the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses was the appropriate body to elaborate the standard. The Commission discussed this matter and decided not to refer the standard to the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses but to refer consideration of this to the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils which could seek the advice of the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses, if appropriate. The delegation of Portugal stated that it could not agree to some of the additives proposed.
Status of the Standard
368. The Commission agreed to advance the Draft Standard to Step 6.
Consideration of the Proposed Draft Standard for Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed Oil at Step 5
369. The Commission noted that the Committee was continuing its work on a draft standard for low erucic acid rapeseed oil and drew special attention to the importance of provisions for sterols (brassica sterol) and erucic acid content. The Secretariat pointed out that, for budgetary reasons, the proposed Expert Consultation on the health implications of erucic acid proposed to be held in the biennium 1976/77 had been cancelled, but expressed the hope that it would be possible for WHO to hold and ad hoc Group Meeting on the subject. The delegation of France, supported by the delegation of Japan, pointed out that any standard for edible rapeseed oil should be based on a low erucic acid content, because many countries had already established, or would in the near future, make legislative provisions prohibiting the use of high erucic acid rapeseed oil for human consumption and would, therefore, oppose the advancement of the standard under its present name to Step 6. It was noted that the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils had already elaborated a standard for edible rapeseed oil which had been issued to governments for acceptance.
Status of the Standard
370. The Commission decided to advance the Draft Standard to Step 6.
Matters arising from the Report of the Eighth Session of the Committee
371. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils, Mr. A. Hubbard (U.K.) introduced the report of the Eighth Session of the Committee (ALINORM 76/19). He drew the attention of the Commission to those matters on which the Committee sought the advice of the Commission:
The Committee had agreed that the General Standard for Fats and Oils not covered by individual standards at Step 9 (CAC/RS 19-1969) should cover both fats and oils for direct consumption and for use as ingredients in other foodstuffs. This decision had required a significant revision of the standard, and the revised version was set forth in Appendix IV to ALINORM 76/19. The Committee requested the Commission to approve the circulation of this revised version to governments for comments at Step 3 of the Amendment Procedure for Step 9 standards. The Commission approved the request.
The Committee was of the opinion that it was necessary to clarify to which types of products the individual standards for edible vegetable oils at Step 9 applied and proposed to introduce as an editorial amendment, a new scope section into these standards. Consequential upon the decisions taken on an accelerated amendment procedure earlier at this session, the Commission agreed to adopt the proposed amendment of individual standards for edible vegetable oils at Step 8.
The Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling, at its Sixth Session, had recommended to the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils to modify the procedure for the determination of moisture content in margarine. The Committee complied with the request and finalized the method to be included in the standard for margarine at Step 9, subject to endorsement by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling. The Commission agreed that this procedure be followed.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
372. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the United Kingdom.
373. The Commission was informed by Mr. R.S. Attwell on behalf of Mr. H.M. Goodall, Chairman of the Codex Committee on Sugars, that the Committee had not met in the period between the Tenth and the present session of the Commission. However, a progress report on a draft standard for fructose had been prepared by the United Kingdom Secretariat for consideration by the Twenty-First Session of the Executive Committee (ALINORM 76/27). The Executive Committee had decided that the draft standard for fructose together with progress report, should be considered by the Eleventh Session of the Commission at Steps 4 and 5 in accordance with the procedure followed with regard to the standard for powdered dextrose.
374. The Commission was further informed that the work of the U.K. Secretariat was geared towards the outcome of the revision of the methods of analysis for sugars being carried out by ICUMSA and also of the methods of analysis for starch hydrolysis products being carried out by ISO. It was unlikely that the outcome of these studies would be available for consideration by the Committee during the current biennium.
Draft Standard for Fructose at Steps 4 and 5
375. The Commission had before it the above-mentioned progress report, ALINORM 76/27, which contained government comments on the standard in Appendix I and a revised draft of the standard for fructose in Appendix II. Addendum I to ALINORM 76/27 contained the Danish comments and the United Kingdom delegate introduced verbally the Egyptian comments which had arrived too late to be printed and distributed. It was pointed out that the substance of the comments in Appendix I had already been incorporated into the revised draft standard as set out in Appendix II. The Danish comments had advocated a wider range for the values of Specific Rotation, from -89° to -93.5°, supported by information received from the Institute of Sugar Technology, Braunschweig. He recommended that this amendment be accepted. The Egyptian comment suggested that the pH range should be restricted; acceptance of this suggestion was not recommended, as the range 4.5 to 7.0 was necessary. Taking into account the uncontroversial nature of the standard, the U.K. Secretariat requested the Commission to advance the standard to Step 6 and, if it were considered to be appropriate, to omit Steps 6 and 7 and adopt the draft standard for fructose at Step 8.
376. It was pointed out that some delegations had opposed the elaboration of a standard for fructose at the present time because of new technological developments currently taking place. The delegations of France and Italy shared this view and drew the attention of the Commission to the fact that the product was also used for dietetic reasons. Both delegations, supported by the delegations of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Brazil, requested that the standard be only advanced to Step 6. The delegation of Canada, supported by several other delegations expressed concern about the high maximum limits for lead in the standard for fructose and for sugars in general, and stated that the present levels of consumption of sugar and sugar related products in Canada, if such products contained 2 ppm lead as a contaminant, would contribute two-thirds of the provisional maximum tolerable weekly intake of lead as suggested by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. The Commission strongly recommended that the lead levels in sugars be kept under review and that the attention of the Codex Committee on Food Additives should be drawn to this matter.
Status of the Standard
377. Noting the reservations of several delegations and noting that the omission of steps could only be authorized without dissent, the Commission decided to advance the draft standard for fructose to Step 6 of the Procedure. The U.K. Secretariat was requested to seek another round of government comments, to revise the standard in the light of these comments and present the standard for consideration by the next session of the Commission at Step 8.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
378. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Sugars should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the United Kingdom.
