165. The Commission considered the following standards at Step 5 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards.
166. The Commission considered the following:
167. The Commission noted that in the General Standard for Edible Fungi and Fungus Products a definition of “Fungi in olive oil and other vegetable oils” was to be supplied to the rapporteur (delegation of Poland) by the delegation of Italy. The Commission agreed that the attention of Governments should be drawn to Section 2.6 of the general standard containing a definition of mineral impurities. While the definition itself was clear, there was some doubt as to whether the term “mineral impurities” was correct. A number of delegations thought that the definition should come under the heading of contaminants.
168. The Commission had no specific comments to make on the standard for dried edible fungi.
169. As regards the European Regional Standard for Fresh Fungus Chanterelle, the Commission noted that the definitions of defects in fresh fungi contained in the General Standard for Edible Fungi and Fungus Products applied and agreed that it would be advisable to enumerate in the standard the relevant subsections of the general standard.
170. The Commission agreed to advance the General Standard for Edible Fungi and Fungus Products and the Standard for Dried Edible Fungi to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards. The Commission also agreed to advance the European Regional Standard for Fresh Fungus Chanterelle to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Regional Standards.
171. The Commission agreed that the footnote on ‘decantation’ in the European Regional Standard for Natural Mineral Waters should be incorporated in Section I.A. of the standard “Definition of Natural Mineral Water”. The Commission also agreed that the particular attention of Governments should be drawn to paragraph 7 of the Report of the Sixth Session of the Coordinating Committee for Europe and that their comments should be invited regarding claims for natural mineral waters in respect of properties favourable to health.
172. In considering the methods of analysis and sampling section of the standard, the Commission agreed that if the Coordinating Committee for Europe was not in a position to formulate a concrete proposal as to the methods of analysis for all of the criteria listed in the standard, it should request the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling to undertake this task.
173. The Commission reviewed section VII of the standard “Special Prohibitions or Restrictions” and thought that it would be advisable to introduce a scope section in the standard indicating that the standard applied to natural mineral waters and to refreshing nonalcoholic drinks containing natural mineral water. In regard to ii) of section VII of the standard, the Commission thought that this subsection should be editorially amended to read as follows:
“When refreshing non-alcoholic drinks that contain natural mineral water bear the name of natural mineral water....”
The Commission also thought that some of the provisions of section VII of the standard would be more appropriately dealt with under the labelling section of the standard.
174. The Commission agreed to advance the Standard for Natural Mineral Waters to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Regional Codex Standards and agreed that the standard should be considered by the Coordinating Committee for Europe at its next session in the light of Government comments received.
175. The Commission noted that the Standard for Olive Oil, including the methods of analysis which had been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling, had been considered by the International Olive Oil Council at its last session held in November 1968 and had been found to be generally acceptable.
176. One delegation noted that the standard contained no provisions on pesticide residues, and the Commission decided that this was a matter on which Government comments should be sought.
177. The Commission was informed that the limit for solvent residues had not in fact been considered by the Codex Committee on Food Additives. The ‘none’ provision for solvent residues would require to be interpreted in the light of the proposed method of analysis which was able to detect levels of solvent residues down to at least 10 ppm. The Commission agreed therefore that this provision would require to be endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives.
178. The Commission considered the standard for mustardseed oil and decided to advance it to Step 6 of the Procedure. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils had recommended that Steps 6, 7 and 8 be omitted in respect of this standard. As there was an objection to this proposal, the Commission did not proceed with it.
179. The Commission considered standards for apricot, peach and pear nectars, apple, orange, grape, tomato, lemon and grapefruit juices, as well as standards for concentrated apple, orange and grape juices, and decided to advance them to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards. The Commission noted that Governments would be requested to put forward proposals as to methods of analysis for the criteria listed in the standards for consideration by the Joint ECE/ Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on the Standardization of Fruit Juices at its next session. The delegation of Yugoslavia presented a number of comments on, the fruit juice standards, and the Secretariat undertook to make these comments available to the next session of the Group of Experts.
180. The Commission considered the standards for canned green garden peas, canned mushrooms, canned strawberries, canned plums, canned raspberries and canned fruit cocktail. The Commission agreed that they should be advanced to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards. The delegation of Yugoslavia put forward a number of comments regarding these standards, and it was agreed that the delegation of Yugoslavia should communicate these comments to the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables.
181. The Commission considered the standards for frozen gutted Pacific salmon, frozen fillets of cod and haddock and canned shrimps and prawns. The Commission agreed to advance them to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards.
182. The Commission considered the Sampling Plans for Processed Fruits and Vegetables which had been considered by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables at its last session. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables had seen no reason why these plans, which were statistical sampling plans, would not be suitable for prepackaged foods other than processed fruits and vegetables. The Commission also noted that the Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on the Standardization of Quick Frozen Foods had considered that these plans would be suitable for the products being dealt with by it, while the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products thought that the plans could be made applicable to canned fish products. The Commission decided therefore to change the title of the sampling plans to make them applicable to all prepackaged foods. It was pointed out that different products might require different sampling criteria. The Commission decided that the sampling plans should be sent out to Governments for comment at Step 6 and that they should also be sent to Codex Commodity Committees for their views as to the suitability of the plans for the various products being dealt with by these Committees. These comments should be considered by the relevant Codex Commodity Committees, whose views together with the government comments should be referred to the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.
183. The Commission noted that these sampling plans, which had been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling, were intended to deal with the quality evaluation of prepackaged foods but were not intended to cover factors that might present a health hazard to the consumer. In regard to this latter matter, the Commission noted the willingness of the delegation of the USA to provide the Secretariat with information which would be useful for drawing up sampling plans to cover factors involving health risks to the consumer.
184. The Commission considered the Technical Procedure for Sampling Foods contained in Appendix VI to ALINORM 69/23. The Commission decided to advance this Technical Procedure to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards.
185. The Commission considered the codes of hygienic practice for dried fruits, desiccated coconut, dehydrated fruits and vegetables including edible fungi, and quick frozen fruit and vegetable products. The Commission agreed that these codes of hygienic practice should be advanced to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards. The Commission noted the proposal of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene that in the case of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Dried Fruits, Steps 6, 7 and 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards should be omitted. As there was no objection to this proposal, the Commission agreed that this code of hygienic practice should be sent out to Governments as a code of hygienic practice recommended by the Commission.
186. The Commission considered a list of tolerances, temporary tolerances and practical residue limits which had been submitted at Step 5 by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (see Appendix III to ALINORM 69/24). The delegate of Argentina pointed out that some tolerances for aldrin and dieldrin were higher in the legislation which had recently been established in his country. The Secretariat was requested to submit these figures together with the relevant residue data to the next session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.
187. Some delegations of developing countries indicated that they were not able to comment constructively as to the practicability or desirability of any proposed pesticide tolerances in the absence of data from sources in their own countries, relating to the levels of pesticide residues in foods actually occurring, or found to be necessary. Such delegations indicated the need for FAO and WHO to assist their countries in the safe and most economic use of pesticides as well as on methods of analysis and the setting up and enforcement of pesticide tolerances. It was agreed that these problems should be brought to the attention of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues. The WHO Secretariat explained that WHO had provided assistance to Governments of Member States on such matters by granting fellowships to scientists to acquire additional training or experience in another country and by engaging experts to advise Governments, and that WHO would be pleased to receive requests for such assistance.
188. The Commission agreed to advance the list of tolerances, temporary tolerances and practical residue limits, referred to in paragraph 186 above to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards.
189. The Commission had before it a list of food colours at Step 5 submitted by the Codex Committee on Food Additives, as given in ALINORM 69/12, Appendix VII. These colours had been given an acceptable daily intake for man by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and had been found by the Codex Committee on Food Additives as acceptable for use in food. In view of the fact that this list contained only a limited number of food colours, would be further extended and was not intended to be a comprehensive list of colours for use in food, the Commission decided that the list should simply be regarded as being for the information of Member Governments and commodity committees and should be published as an Appendix to this Report (see Appendix X).
