PART XVI

CONSIDERATION OF STANDARDS AT STEP 8 OF THE PROCEDURE FOR THE ELABORATION OF CODEX STANDARDS

General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods

127. The Commission examined the above standard, section by section, in the light of government comments, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards. The standard considered was contained in Appendix II to ALINORM 69/22. The Commission considered a proposal that the standard should be treated as being in the nature of guidelines for Codex Committees, setting out principles to which Codex Committees should have recourse in elaborating the labelling sections of Codex standards. The delegations which supported this proposal took the view that mandatory labelling provisions should be elaborated only for products for which Codex standards were being drawn up. Other delegations thought that it was even more important to have a general labelling standard for foods which were not covered by Codex standards. The Commission decided by a majority to treat the text as a general standard applicable to all prepackaged foods, whether standardized or not.

128. The following amendments to the text of Appendix II of ALINORM 69/22 were agreed to:

1. Definition of Terms

The Commission decided that the term ‘component’ needed to be defined, in order to clarify paragraph 3.2 (ii), and agreed to the following text: “‘component’ means any substance which forms part of an ‘ingredient’.”

3.2 List of Ingredients

Sub-paragraph 3.2(i) - The Commission agreed to add the text shown below as a further exception to this provision:

“(c) in the case of foods in respect of which the national legislation does not require a complete declaration of ingredients provided that such exemptions have been granted because (i) the food is of well known composition and (ii) the absence of a declaration of ingredients is not prejudicial to the consumer and (iii) the information provided on the label enables the consumer to understand the nature of the food.”

Sub-paragraph 3.2 (ii) - The Commission agreed to adopt the following text to avoid confusion between the words “ingredients” and “components”:

“When an ingredient of a food has more than one component, the names of the components shall be included in the list of ingredients, except where such an ingredient is a food for which a Codex standard has been established and such standard does not require a complete list of ingredients.”

Sub-paragraph 3.2 (iii) - The Commission agreed to the amendment proposed by the United Kingdom, with minor editorial changes. The purpose of this amendment was to restrict the class titles for additives to those substances permitted for use in food. The delegation of the Netherlands expressed the strong view that all class titles must be well defined. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany was of the opinion that class titles for the first seven items of the list, especially class titles concerning oils and fats, should not be used. Since, in the view of a number of delegations, the list appeared incomplete, the Commission agreed that the list was not exhaustive and that it could be amended at a later stage by the addition of further class titles. In this connection, the Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Sugars and the Codex Committee on Food Labelling could consider the feasibility of including sugars as a class title in the list. The following text was adopted:

“A specific name shall be used for ingredients in the list of ingredients except that, for ingredients falling in the respective classes, the following class titles may be used:

3.3 Net Contents

The Commission considered a proposal by the delegation of Cuba, which was supported by a number of delegations, that, as the great majority of the countries in the world operated on the metric system, there should always be a declaration of net contents in the metric (S.I. Units) system. While the Commission considered that it would be desirable to have one system of weights and measures, it did not consider it appropriate at the present time to preclude the possibility of using other systems of weights and measures. For this reason, the Commission decided to make no change in the text of the standard in respect of this matter. The following revised version of 3.3 Net Contents was agreed to:

“The net contents shall be declared in either the metric (S.I. Units) or Avoirdupois or both systems of measurements as required by the country in which the food is sold. This declaration shall be made in the following manner:

1. for liquid foods, by volume;
2. for solid foods, by weight, except that when such foods are usually sold by number, a declaration by count may be made;
3. for semi-solid or viscous foods, either by weight or volume.”

3.5 Country of Origin

The Commission considered a proposal of the delegation of Argentina that the country of origin should be declared in all cases. The Commission decided against the Argentine proposal by a majority of 19 to 15 with 1 abstention. The Commission unanimously decided to delete the word “essentially” in the phrase “processing in a second country which essentially changes its nature”. The delegation of Malta indicated that they wished to see the word “processing” in the phrase “the country in which the processing is performed shall be considered to be the country of origin” replaced by the phrase “processing and re-processing”. The Commission decided, however, to make no change in the present text in this respect.

Datemarking

The Commission considered a proposal of the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany, supported by a number of delegations, to add the following text to cover datemarking of foods:

“When datemarking is provided for in a commodity standard, it should be given in clear if its purpose is to inform the consumer, but may be given in code when it is only for control or other purposes”.

The Commission decided not to include this provision in the standard but agreed that it should be brought to the attention of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling for consideration as to whether it should be included in that Committee's recommendations to Codex Commodity Committees (Appendix III of ALINORM 69/22). The delegation of Senegal stated that it was important for developing countries, many of which were significant food importers, that the date beyond which the foods concerned should not be consumed be clearly indicated.

129. The Commission decided by a majority of 21 to 13 with 4 abstentions to advance the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards.

Honey

130. The Commission had before it for consideration the Standard for Honey at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Regional Codex Standards. The standard was set out in ALINORM 69/43.

131. The Commission also had before it a Canadian proposal to designate the Standard for Honey as a world-wide Codex standard. The Commission decided by 8 to 2 with 19 abstentions to suspend the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards in order to deal with the Canadian proposal.

132. Following the consideration of arguments put forward by some delegations in favour of treating the standard as a world-wide Codex standard, and of arguments by other delegations in favour of treating the standard as a regional Codex standard, the Commission proceeded to vote on this issue. The Canadian proposal to designate the standard as a world-wide standard was defeated by 15 votes to 9 with 11 abstentions.

133. The Commission agreed that the following comments should be recorded and agreed on the amendments set out below:

2.1.2 Moisture content

The delegation of the Netherlands reserved its position on the decision of the Commission not to amend the maximum figure of 23% moisture content in respect of heather honey (Calluna).

2.1.5 Mineral content (ash)

Change 0.4% to 0.6%.

2.1.7 Diastase activity and hydroxymethylfurfural content

Delete the word ‘immediately’ in the phrase ‘Determind immediately after processing and blending diastase figure on Gothe scale’. The following text is to replace the existing text:

“Honeys with low natural enzyme content, e.g. Citrus, diastase content on Gothe scale: not less than 3 provided the hydroxymethylfurfural content is not more than 15 mg/kg”.

4. HYGIENE

Change the existing text to read as follows:

“It is recommended that the product covered by the provisions of this standard be prepared in accordance with the appropriate sections of the General Principles of Food Hygiene. Honey should, as far as practicable, be free from inorganic or organic matters foreign to its composition, such as mould, insects, insect debris, brood or grains of sand, when the honey appears in retail trade or is used in any product for human consumption”.

5. CONTAMINANTS

Delete this section.

6. LABELLING

6.4 Country of origin

Delete the second sentence beginning “If the honey undergoes processing in a second country ..…” since this provision would not apply to honey.

7. METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND SAMPLING

The Commission authorized the Secretariat to make minor corrections and editorial changes to the section on Methods of Analysis and Sampling on the basis of information given by the representative of APIMONDIA and the delegations of the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia.

134. The Commission agreed, with regard to analysis, that, as different results were often obtained even from using the same methods of testing, there was a need for collaborative testing between laboratories.

135. The delegation of the United States objected to the values established for diastase activity and HMF content on the grounds that much of the honey produced and consumed in the United States would not meet these values. It was the opinion of the US delegation that these provisions of the honey standard were not in conformity with the Codex Alimentarius principle of establishing minimum mandatory standards for wholesome acceptable products. The US delegation considered that the honey standard contained criteria for a special quality product which excluded much good and wholesome honey.

136. The Commission decided to advance the Standard for Honey to step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Regional Codex Standards.

Margarine

137. The Commission reconsidered at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards the standard for margarine which was contained in Appendix XX of ALINORM 69/11 and which had been held at Step 8 of the Procedure at the comments should be recorded and decided on the amendments indicated below:

II. Description

The Commission considered a proposal by the delegation of the Netherlands to delete the word “usually” from sub-section (a) of this section. The delegation of Japan pointed out that this proposal would have the effect of excluding from the standard a type of margarine manufactured in Japan. A number of delegations supported the view of the Japanese delegation that the word “usually” should be retained in this sub-section of the standard. As opinion appeared to be more or less evenly divided on this issue, it was decided to proceed to a vote. The Commission decided by 16 to 14 with 7 abstentions to delete the word “usually” from this sub-section. The Commission decided, however, to ask the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils to consider the product referred to by the delegation of Japan at its next session.

III. Essential Composition and Quality Factors

(a) Raw materials

ii) The delegation of Denmark reserved its position on the decision to retain the existing text of III. (a) (ii).

Maximum Water Content

The Commission considered a proposal of the U.K. delegation to insert the following additional provision in Section III of the standard:

“Maximum water content: 16% of the product, by weight.”

This question had been specifically drawn to the attention of the Commission by the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils. In view of a divergency of opinion on this issue, it was decided to proceed to a vote. The Commission decided by 18 to 16 with 3 abstentions to adopt the U.K. amendment.

IV. Food Additives

In considering the provisions on food additives, the Commission noted that a number of the food additives listed had not been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives. This was due to a variety of reasons but the main ones were that the Codex Committee on Food Additives had not yet had an opportunity to consider these provisions or that the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives had not yet made a toxicological evaluation of the substances concerned. A number of delegations indicated that their countries might not be able to accept all of the food additives listed in the standard. It was pointed out, however, that under the acceptance procedures it would be open to countries to indicate which additives they were unable to accept.
The Commission decided to make no change in the present texts of the food additives provisions of the standard but agreed to proceed as follows. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives would be requested to consider at its next session those additives in the standard which had not yet been evaluated toxicologically. The Codex Committee on Food Additives would be requested to consider, at its next session, the endorsement of those food additives in the standard which had not yet been endorsed and for which the Expert Committee was able to establish an acceptable daily intake (ADI) or temporary ADI. The standard when sent to Governments for acceptance, would contain only those additives which had been previously endorsed, or temporarily endorsed, and those which may be endorsed or temporarily endorsed at the next session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives. The food additives which have been or will have been temporarily endorsed would be so indicated in the standard. Those additives which will not have been endorsed or temporarily endorsed following the next session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives will be deleted from the standard before it is issued to Governments for acceptance.

The Commission also decided that the additives referred to in paragraphs 19 (h), 19(i) and 19(j) of the Report of the Fifth session of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils and listed in the margarine standard, for which that Committee had not established levels of use or had not agreed on their technological need, should be reconsidered by the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils at its next session. The food additives agreed to, together with the proposed levels of use, would then be referred to the Codex Committee on Food Additives for endorsement. If that Committee should endorse them, there would then be the possibility of ultimately including them in the standard in accordance with the Procedure for the Revision and Amendment of Recommended Codex Standards.

VIII. Labelling

The Commission decided that the labelling section of the standard should be editorially amended to take account of the changes in the revised version of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. No changes were made in the specific labelling provisions of the standard. The delegation of the United Kingdom indicated that, while it would have wished to see a provision regarding claims for the presence of milk fat or butter included in the standard, it did not intend to move its proposed amendment in this respect.

138. The Commission agreed to advance the margarine standard to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards. The delegations of Japan and Perù reserved their countries' positions regarding this decision.

Land and Rendered Pork Fat

139. The Commission considered the standards at step 8 for lard and rendered pork fat.

140. A number of delegations were of the opinion that it was not necessary to have two standards because they considered that there was no significant difference in the chemical criteria to distinguish the two products. Delegations in favour of two standards pointed out that, if a specific standard was not made for rendered pork fat, perfectly edible products would be excluded from international trade because of the general standard on fats and oils which contained more stringent provisions than those contained in the proposed standard for rendered pork fat. It was therefore decided to proceed with the detailed examination of the standard for lard and rendered pork fat.

141. On the section on food additives, the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that in his country only three antioxidants and two synergists were permitted. The delegate of Canada pointed out that the Codex Committee on Food Additives was unable to endorse NDGA (Nordihydroguaiaretic Acid) as the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives had not been able to establish an ADI for this compound, and that more recent data had shown that the substance was more toxic than shown by the data considered to-date by the Expert Committee. As a number of food additives in these standards had not yet been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives, and since this Committee had been asked to consider all the food additive provisions of the standards on fats and oils, the Commission agreed that the question of NDGA would also best be dealt with by this Committee.

142. It was decided by a majority of 14 to 9 with 8 abstentions that the standards for lard and rendered pork fat should be advanced to Step 9.

Premier Jus and Edible Tallow

143. The Commission then proceeded to consider the standards for premier jus and edible tallow submitted at Step 8.

144. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany made the same reservations on the section on food additives as shown in this report for the standards on lard and rendered pork fat.

145. The Commission decided to advance both standards to Step 9.

General standard for Edible Fats and Oils not covered by individual Codex standards

146. The Commission examined the above standard, section by section, in the light of Government comments, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards. The following amendments were made to the text of the standard:

II. DESCRIPTIONS

The Commission considered a proposal to exclude edible marine oils from the definition in II(a) and to elaborate a separate standard for these products. The Commission agreed to amend the Scope section to clarify that the standard applied to fats and oils as consumed and not to fats and oils intended for further modification and processing. The following text was agreed to:

“SCOPE
This standard applies to edible oils, fats and mixtures thereof, including those that have been subjected to processes of modification but not including oils and fats which must be subjected to such processes in order to render them suitable for human consumption. This standard does not apply to any oil or fat which is the subject of a specific Codex commodity standard and is designated by a specific name laid down in such standards.”

IV. ADDITIVES

Some delegations were of the opinion that emulsifiers should be permitted in fats and oils whether or not the fats and oils were specifically designated by the name of the plant or animal concerned. Other delegations held the view that there was no technological justification for the use of emulsifiers in either fats or oils and reserved their positions. It was agreed that the prohibition against the use of emulsifiers would not apply when the name of the plant or animal source was not designated in the name of the product. As regards the flavouring and colouring of fats and oils, a number of delegations entered strong reservations concerning the addition of flavours or colours to these products on the grounds that they were not technologically justifiable. The Commission agreed by a majority to insert the following preamble under the heading colours in paragraph IV(a):

“The following colours are permitted for the purpose of restoring natural colour lost in processing or for the purpose of standardizing colour, as long as the added colour does not deceive or mislead the consumer by concealing damage or inferiority or by making the product appear to be of greater than actual value.”

With regard to the use of flavours the Commission agreed to the following redrafting of paragraph IV(b):

“Natural flavours and their identical synthetic equivalents and other synthetic flavours are permitted for the purpose of restoring natural flavour lost in processing or for the purpose of standardizing flavour, as long as the added flavour does not deceive or mislead the consumer by concealing damage or inferiority or by making the product appear to be of greater than actual value.”

The Commission also agreed that, since a number of food additives in the standard had not been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives, the same procedure should be followed as agreed for margarine (see paragraph 137).

VII. LABELLING

It was agreed that the labelling section of the standard should be editorially amended to take account of the changes in the revised version of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. The Commission adopted the entire labelling section of the standard without amendments.

147. The Commission decided by a majority to advance the General Standard for Edible Fats and Oils to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards. The delegations of Argentina, Cuba, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Poland, Switzerland and Venezuela wished that their reservations with respect to this decision be recorded.

Individual Standards for Edible Oils

148. The Commission examined the standards for edible soya bean oil, edible arachis oil, edible cottonseed oil, edible sunflowerseed oil, edible rapeseed oil, edible maize oil, edible sesameseed oil and edible safflowerseed oil contained in Appendices III-X of ALINORM 69/11 at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards. The following comments on and amendments to the text of the various standards were made:

Food Additives

A number of delegations strongly objected to the use of colours in edible oils for the reasons stated in para.146 with respect to the General Standard for Fats and Oils. It was pointed out that it was possible to produce edible oils without adversely affecting their colour. Similar objections were raised to the use of flavours and emulsifiers. Some delegations were also of the opinion that the list of permitted food additives in the standards for fats and oils was unduly long. Other delegations were of the opinion that an international standard should accommodate as many practices as feasible provided the food additives were considered to be safe. The Commission decided to proceed in the same manner regarding unendorsed food additives as in the case of margarine (see paragraph 137), and to insert the statement given in paragraph 146 in respect of food colours and flavours.

Methods of analysis and sampling

The delegation of the USA was of the opinion that the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils should give consideration to the establishment of criteria for the fatty acid composition of edible oils using gas-liquid chromatographic methods. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils had in fact already considered this question and was proposing to consider at its next session the possibility of introducing such criteria into the standards on an advisory basis.

Labelling

The Commission agreed that the labelling section of the standards should be editorially amended to take account of the changes made to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods.

149. The Commission decided by 18 to 7 with 11 abstentions to advance the standards for the edible oils listed in paragraph 148 above to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards.

150. After having discussed all the standards on fats and oils at Step 8, it was agreed that the decision taken concerning the food additives section of the standard for margarine (paragraph 137, IV) would be applicable to all the standards on fats and oils advanced to Step 9.

Canned Pacific Salmon

151. The Commission considered the standard for Canned Pacific Salmon. It was agreed to delete reference to food grade in respect of salt listed under the permitted additions to the product, and after a discussion of the provision requiring the identification of lot in code, it was agreed to leave this section unamended. A number of delegations indicated that in their opinion this section should be amended to allow the option of identification of lots in clear, and the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany and other delegations stated that the datemarking should always be shown in clear. Several other delegations pointed out that this was not the normal practice in respect of canned fish products.

152. The Commission decided to advance the Standard for Canned Pacific Salmon to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards.

Sugars

153. The Commission examined three standards - White Sugar, Powdered (Icing) Sugar, and Soft Sugars - section by section, in the light of Government comments, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards. These standards were contained in Appendices II, III and IV to ALINORM 69/21. The Commission also considered a Note by the Secretariat on these standards (ALINORM 69/53).

154. White Sugar

Scope

It was agreed to add a ‘Scope’ section as follows:

“This standard applies to white sugar except that para. 3.1.4 (loss on drying) does not apply to white sugar in lump or cube form or to crystal candy sugar (crystal korizato) or to rock sugar (korizato).”

II. Essential Composition and Quality Factors

Some delegations considered that the provison for colour was too restrictive. However, the majority thought that it should not be changed.

III. Food Additives

The question was raised by several delegations as to whether sulphur dioxide, which is used during the processing of sugar essentially as a bleaching agent but not added to the end product, should be considered as an additive or a contaminant. The Commission decided to keep it in the section “Food Additives”.

IV. Contaminants

Concerning the temporary endorsement of the maximum permissible level of lead, the representative of WHO informed the Commission that sufficient information was not available at present on lead intake in the total diet. Until this information was forthcoming, a definite ruling on the permissible levels of this contaminant in individual foods could not be given. This also applied to powdered sugar and soft sugars.

VI. Labelling

The Commission agreed to amend the labelling provisions (i) to delete the requirement for a complete list of ingredients, (ii) to alter the other provisions in respect of the name, to include the expressions plantation white sugar and mill white sugar in place of ‘plantation white’ and ‘mill white’, (iii) to restrict the use of these terms to products conforming to the standard, and (iv) to make it clear that, where the designations ‘plantation white sugar’ or ‘mill white sugar’, or any other equivalent name incorporating the word ‘white’ is used, the word ‘white’ shall not be given undue prominence in relation to the words ‘plantation’ or ‘mill’, or to any other word in such name.

155. Powdered Sugar (Icing Sugar)

III. Food Additives

The Commission decided to proceed in the same manner regarding unendorsed food additives as in the case of margarine (see paragraph 137).

VII. Methods of Analysis and Sampling

The ICUMSA representative declared that methods of analysis and sampling for powdered sugars would be equivalent to those endorsed for white sugars, as far as quality criteria were concerned, and that methods of analysis for minerals and food additives were under consideration by ICUMSA and would probably be agreed in London at their next session in 1970. The Commission requested the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling to examine these methods at the first possible opportunity.

156. Soft Sugars

The Commission agreed to amend the labelling provisions to delete the requirement for a complete list of ingredients.

157. The Commission decided to advance the three standards on sugars to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards.

General Standard for Quick Frozen Foods

158. The Commission had before it for consideration at Step 8 the General Standard for Quick Frozen Foods which had been elaborated by the Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on the Standardization of Quick Frozen Foods. The Commission had been asked for guidance by the Group of Experts as to whether this standard should be regarded as a mandatory standard or as an advisory code of practice. In this connection it took note of the discussions which had taken place within the Group of Experts on this subject as reflected in paragraph 9 of the Report of the Group of Experts' Fourth Session. The Commission decided to ask the Group of Experts to discontinue work on the General Standard and to consider the development of an advisory Code of Practice for Frozen Foods, including, where appropriate, sections of the General Standard.

159. The Commission noted that the delegations attending the meeting of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products had considered that the General Standard for Quick Frozen Foods was not suitable for fish and fishery products. The Commission agreed that, in accordance with the Terms of Reference of the Group of Experts on Quick Frozen Foods, Codex Commodity Committees dealing with specific commodity groups such as frozen fish, meat, etc., should continue to develop standards for these products. In asking the Group of Experts on Quick Frozen Foods to develop a code of practice for quick frozen foods, the Commission suggested that the Quick Frozen Foods Group should consider whether it would not be more advisable to entrust the task of elaborating codes of practice for specific commodity groups, such as fish, meat and dairy products, to the Commodity Committees concerned.

160. While the Commission appreciated the usefulness of a code of practice for quick frozen foods, it recommended that the Group of Experts on Quick Frozen Foods should give priority to the development of individual product standards.

161. The Commission noted that the Group of Experts on Quick Frozen Foods had been working in close cooperation with the International Institute of Refrigeration and the Working Party on the Transport of Perishable Foodstuffs of the Inland Transport Committee of the UNECE.

Pesticide Residue Tolerances

162. The Commission considered pesticide residue tolerances for hydrogen cyanide, malathion and inorganic bromide in raw cereals and hydrogen cyanide in flour (see Appendix II of ALINORM 69/24) at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards. The Commission agreed that it was necessary to provide the tolerances with a preamble indicating the point at which they entered into force. The Commission noted that paragraph 68 of the Report of the Third Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues was relevant in this respect. It was also agreed that the tolerance for inorganic bromide should be provided with a note to indicate that the purpose of this tolerance was to control the use of the fumigants methyl bromide and ethylene dibromide. With regard to the tolerances for hydrogen cyanide a number of delegations were of the opinion that the limit of 75 ppm was too high and suggested values ranging from 15 to 25 ppm for raw cereals. Two countries were of the opinion that the limit for inorganic bromide should be lowered. It was pointed out that the level of pesticide used had to be sufficient to prevent infestation of food, particularly in hot climates. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues was considering establishing tolerances for the unchanged organic bromide fumigants mentioned above.

163. The delegation of Cuba stressed the need for standard methods of analysis to determine pesticide residues in food, and pointed out that the differences in the levels of pesticide residues found in food may be due to the fact that different methods of analysis had been employed. It was pointed out that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues was considering this problem in an endeavour to establish international referee methods. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues recommended that the absence of Codex referee methods should not hold up the advancement of the tolerances through the Procedure.

164. The Commission agreed by a majority of 24 to 4 with 5 abstentions to advance the tolerances as set out below to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards. The delegation of France, while recognizing the value of fixing tolerances for raw materials such as cereal grains, recalled that the scope of the Codex Alimentarius was limited to foods which were processed, semi-processed or raw, for distribution to the consumer.

Tolerances for Pesticide Residues

The foods listed in column 2 below shall not contain more than the tolerance stated in column 3 of the pesticide residue listed in column 1 at the point of entry into a country or at the point of entry into trade channels within a country and this tolerance shall not be exceeded at any time thereafter.

¹ Tolerances for the residues of the unchanged methyl bromide and ethylene dibromide may be recommended at a later date.