Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT CODEX STANDARDS AT STEP 7


Draft Revised Codex Standard for Pineapples (Agenda Item 3a)
Draft Codex Standard for Grapefruits (Agenda Item 3b)
Draft Codex Standard for Longans (Agenda Item 3c)

Draft Revised Codex Standard for Pineapples[10] (Agenda Item 3a)

24. The Committee recalled that the Draft Standard had been adopted at Step 5 by the 45th Session of the Executive Committee and reviewed the standard section by section in the light of the comments received at Step 6 in reply to CL 1998/28-FV, with the following amendments.

Title

25. The Committee agreed that the scientific name in parenthesis should follow the common name, in order to avoid the confusion, which might occur between different common names in the Spanish version.

Section 1 - Definition of Produce

26. The Committee agreed that the scientific name should be Ananas comosus L. (instead of Merr. ), and that the name of the family should also be "Bromeliaceae" in the Spanish version (instead of Bromeliaceas).

Section 2.1 - Minimum Requirements

27. As the current requirement for "whole" refers to pineapples "with or without the crown", the Committee had an exchange of views on whether the standard should allow pineapples without crown. The Observer from COLEACP expressed its disagreement with this provision as it would alter the overall quality of the fruit and did not correspond to current practice in the market, especially in African countries exporting to the European market. The Observer expressed the view that justification had not been provided so far for the inclusion of pineapples without crown in terms of exports and imports, whereas pineapples with the crown represented the largest part of international trade. The Delegations of France and India also indicated that they did not allow the crown to be cut as it might cause damage to the fruit.

28. Several delegations however stressed that pineapples without crown had been marketed in their countries and exported for several years without problems and that the standard should reflect current trade practices. The Committee therefore agreed to retain the current wording, which refers to pineapples without crown.

29. A reference to the damage caused by high and/or low temperature was added, to cover all possible alterations due to inadequate temperature. It was also specified that the cut of the peduncle should be "transversal, straight and clean" for clarification purposes.

30. In section 2.1.1, the Committee discussed the requirements concerning physiological ripeness and agreed to delete the reference to "white flesh" as an indicator of unripeness since this colour is a characteristic of some varieties. A footnote was added to the effect that porous flesh was not a defect in certain varieties such as those of the Queen group, as proposed by the Delegation of Thailand. The reference to watery flesh was deleted, as it did not correspond to the characteristic of overripe fruits.

31. The Committee agreed to refer to the "condition" of pineapples rather than to the "state of ripeness" as this was a more general term and would ensure consistency with the other standards for fresh fruits.

32. A reference to the commercial type was included as many commercial types exist for pineapples, in addition to the varieties.

Section 2.1.2 - Maturity Requirements

33. The Delegations of Malaysia and India proposed to reduce the current value of 12°Brix degree to 10, as this corresponded to certain varieties marketed in their countries. Several delegations however stressed that a value of 12°Brix was a minimum to ensure the maturity of the fruit, and the Committee agreed to retain this value.

34. The Committee accepted the proposal from the Delegation of Mexico to specify that the juice sample taken should be representative of the whole fruit. It also agreed that, as different methods existed to determine the Brix value, the method should not be specified in the standard.

Section 2.2.1 - "Extra" Class

35. In Section 2.2.1, the Committee agreed to include a note to explain that trimming consisted in tearing some leaves off the top of the crown. The Delegation of India expressed the view that interest of both consumers and traders needed to be considered and proposed that the length of the crown should be between 50 and 100 percent.

Sections 2.2.2 Class I and 2.2.3 Class II

36. The Committee agreed that "sun spots" should be included in "slight defect in colouring" rather than in "slight skin defects".

Section 3 - Provisions concerning Sizing

37. The Committee agreed to mention the examples of small size varieties (Victoria and Queen) with a lower minimum size in a footnote to the text of the section. The Delegation of South Africa proposed that a minimal size of 250g should be introduced as it corresponded to certain varieties of the Queen group that were produced in that country and the Committee agreed to replace 400g with 250 g for smaller varieties.

38. The Committee agreed with the proposal of the Delegations of the United States and Costa Rica to include a paragraph referring to the uniformity in the package for the pineapples packaged by size code, in order to take into account current trade practices.

Section 4 - Provisions concerning Tolerances

39. The Delegation of Costa Rica proposed to refer to tolerances in the inspection lot (instead of the package), as the tolerances were not applicable to a single package, but to the total sample taken for inspection, and the Committee agreed with this proposal.

Section 6 - Marking or Labelling

40. The Delegation of Costa Rica pointed out that in most cases, pineapples were not pre-packaged for the final consumer and that the requirements of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods should not be applied to a single fruit. Consequently, it proposed to combine the sections for consumer packages and non-retail containers, and to delete the reference to the General Standard.

41. The Delegation of Canada expressed its concern with this change as the General Standard included general and specific requirements which were applicable to all pre-packaged foods for the final consumer and which were a basis for governments to regulate labelling provisions. The Secretariat recalled that current labelling sections in Codex standards always included a reference to the General Standard and if an exception was introduced, it should be submitted for consideration to the Committee on Food Labelling. It was also noted that irrespective of the provisions in the individual standards, the General Standard applied to all pre-packaged foods.

42. The Committee agreed to retain the current provisions (separate sections for consumer packages and non-retail containers) and to delete the reference to the General Standard in Section 6.1, but to specify in a footnote that it would apply to pre-packaged fresh product. It also noted that this section would be sent to the CCFL for endorsement according to the usual procedure.

43. Some delegations expressed the view that it would be useful to initiate a general reflection on the labelling requirements to be included in the standards for fruits and vegetables, in order to ensure adequate consumer information.

Section 8 - Hygiene

44. The Committee noted that the 30th Session of the Committee on Food Hygiene had amended the general hygiene provisions in commodity standards and agreed to include the amended hygiene section accordingly.

45. The Observer from COLEACP expressed the view that the standard was not yet ready for finalization and needed further discussion as several changes had been introduced. The Committee however recognized that the draft had been discussed extensively in the previous and current sessions, and that substantial progress had been made to update it and take into account current practices, with a view to facilitating international trade.

Status of the Draft Revised Standard for Pineapples

46. The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Standard to the 23rd Session of the Commission for adoption at Step 8 (see Appendix II).

Draft Codex Standard for Grapefruits (Agenda Item 3b)[11]

47. The Committee recalled that the Draft Standard had been adopted at Step 5 by the Executive Committee and that comments had been requested at Step 6 in CL 1998/28-FV. In addition, the UNECE Standard for Citrus Fruit had been circulated as a working document, to be used as a reference in the development of Codex standards for citrus fruits.

48. The Committee reviewed the standard section by section, taking into account the changes of a general nature introduced in the other standards under discussion, and made the following specific amendments.

Title

49. The Committee had an extensive discussion on the difficulties related to the common name of the product in Spanish. The Delegation of Mexico indicated that the common name of Citrus paradisi was "toronja", while the Delegation of Spain and other delegations pointed out that it was "pomelo" in their countries. It was recalled that the Draft Standard for Citrus grandis, forwarded to Step 8 by the last session of the Committee, referred to the common name of "pomelo" in the Spanish version.

50. The Committee recalled that current practice was to designate fruits and vegetables by their common names in Codex standards; however, it recognized the need to find an acceptable compromise for all countries concerned and to allow them to market this product while preventing confusion in international trade. The Committee therefore agreed to refer to the scientific name in the title of the Spanish version and to include a footnote specifying that this product was commonly known in certain regions as pomelo or toronja. No changes were made to this section in the English and French versions. As a consequence, reference was made to the fruits (instead of "pomelo" or "toronja") throughout the standard in the Spanish text.

Section 2.1 - Minimum Requirements

51. A reference to frost was added to the section concerning damage caused by low temperature, in view of the importance of this type of damage in citrus fruit. Damage caused by high temperature was also included in this section for consistency with the other standards.

Section 2.1.2 - Maturity Requirements

52. The Committee agreed to delete the Minimum Sugar/Acid Ratio, as the essential requirement concerning maturity was the minimum juice content, and noted that it was not included in the relevant UNECE standard.

Section 2.1.3 Colouring

53. The Committee had an exchange of views on the opportunity of including an explanation of the distinction between colouring and blemishes. Some delegations felt that this was not needed, as the section should be consistent with the other standards and only indicate that colour should be typical of the variety, and skin defects were covered in the description of quality classes. The Delegations of the United States pointed out that such clarification was necessary in their country for inspection purposes, especially in humid areas where melanoses and rust mite represented a significant problem. The Committee agreed to include the first sentence of this section as a footnote to the text.

Section 3 - Provisions concerning Sizing

54. The Delegation of the United States referred to their comments in CRD 7 and to an unnumbered document distributed during the session, proposing that the standard should introduce an additional sizing system based on the number of grapefruits per carton

55. Several delegations and the Observer from CLAM expressed their concern with the use of this alternative system, since it took as a reference the number of fruits per carton of 20kg, and maintained the same number or code when the carton had a different weight. This meant that the number specified on the marking would not correspond to the actual number of fruits in the package, which would not be consistent with fair trade practices. The Committee also noted that this significant amendment to the draft had been put forward only during the current session, although the draft standard had been circulated for comments in August 1998, and it was therefore difficult for delegations to take a decision on this issue at this stage.

56. The Delegation of the United States indicated that the count code was used with cartons of 20kg (the reference for the code) and other types of cartons; however this created no confusion in trade, since commercial operators used it more as a size code than to reflect the actual number of fruits in the carton. The Delegation pointed out that according to trade reports, the count code was used by most exporting countries, rather than the size code. The Delegation of Spain, other delegations and the Observer from CLAM stressed that although their exporters might use the count code when exporting to countries which required it, the use of the size code was mandatory in all cases.

57. Some delegations proposed to allow the use of the count code as an optional alternative while retaining the size code as a mandatory provision, as a compromise. However, the Committee recognized that the two systems were not compatible. Although there was no support for the use of the count code, the Committee decided not to exclude it at this stage as it noted that a similar amendment was under consideration in the UNECE, and that consensus might be achieved in the future on this question. The Committee therefore decided to defer its decision on the sizing section, and to consider it further at the next session, taking into account the recommendations that might result from current work in the UNECE.

Other aspects

58. The Committee agreed to combine the paragraphs concerning grapefruits packed in bulk and uniformity in the container, and to harmonize them with the UNECE Standard for Citrus Fruit.

Section 4.1.3 - Class II

59. Within the tolerances of Class II, a maximum tolerance of 5% was introduced for fruits with specific slight defects, in concordance with the provisions of the UNECE standard.

60. The Committee discussed the opportunity of finalizing the standard since there was no consensus on the proposal for sizing made by the United States, and currently under discussion in the UNECE. As similar changes were proposed in the sizing provisions for oranges, some delegations proposed to address this issue from a general point of view before finalizing the standards where sizing aspects required further consideration.

61. Several delegations stressed that the Committee had made significant progress on all other aspects of the text; the proposed amendment to sizing and the current discussion in UNECE should not delay the advancement of the standard, in view of its importance for international trade. In order to reflect consensus on most sections of the standard, the Committee recognized that the main body could be advanced to Step 8, although the sizing section should be returned to Step 6 for further consideration. The Committee noted that the finalization of the Sizing section might entail consequential amendments to other sections, such as Marking, and recalled that such changes might be introduced through the Accelerated Procedure in the future.

Status of the Draft Standard for Grapefruits (Citrus paradisi)

62. The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Standard to the 23rd Session of the Commission for adoption at Step 8 (see Appendix III), with the exception of the Provisions concerning Sizing, which were returned to Step 6 for further comments and consideration by the next session (See Appendix III).

Draft Codex Standard for Longans (Agenda Item 3c)[12]

63. The Committee was informed that the 45th Session of the Executive Committee advanced the Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Longans to Step 5 and subsequently circulated for comments at Step 6 under CL 1998/28-FFV in August 1998 by the Codex Secretariat.

The following revisions were agreed to by the Committee:

Section 1 - Definition of Produce

64. The Committee agreed to delete "the fruits of" to refer only to "commercial varieties", for consistency with other Codex standards.

Section 2.1 - Minimum Requirements

65. The Committee agreed to add a 4th indent: "clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter", for consistency with other Codex standards.

Section 5.1 - Uniformity

66. The Committee agreed to add "origin" in this Section, since it was felt that longans should be from the same origin.

Section 5.3.2 - In Bunches

67. The Committee agreed to modify the first line of the paragraph to read as follows: "In this case, each stem in a bunch should have at least three attached longans".

Section 8 Hygiene

68. The Committee agreed to apply the same revision previously made to the Draft Codex Standards for Pineapples and Grapefruits as regards Section 8 Food Hygiene.

69. In reply to a proposal made by the Delegation of Thailand to add an additional Section for Food Additives, the Secretariat pointed out that additives and their maximum levels needed to be specified for each particular produce and therefore could not be presented in the same general way as Section 7 Contaminants. However, Thailand could present its proposal directly to the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants in order to have additives for this commodity included in the General Standard for Food Additives.

Status of the Draft Codex Standards for Longans

70. The Committee advanced the Draft Codex Standard for Longans to the Commission for adoption at Step 8 (see Appendix IV).


[10] ALINORM 99/35-Appendix VIII, CX/FFV 99/4 (comments of Germany, Spain, Czech Republic, Cuba), CRD 1 (Mexico), CRD 6 (Argentina), CRD 7 (United States), CRD 8 (Costa Rica)
[11] ALINORM 99/35 Appendix IX, CX/FFV 99/5 (comments from Germany, Spain, Czech Republic, Cuba) CRD 2 (Mexico), CRD 6 (Argentina), CRD 7 (United States)
[12] ALINORM 99/35-App. X and comments from Germany, Czech Republic and Cuba (CX/FFV 99/6), Thailand (CRD 3) and Argentina (CRD 6)

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page