173. The Committee had before it the reports of the 17th and 18th Sessions of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (ALINORM 85/22 and ALINORM 85/22A). Specific items requiring further action were outlined in ALINORM 85/21, Part I.
174. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. R.H. McKay (Canada) introduced the two reports. He expressed satisfaction that the Committee had been able to advance the Revised Text of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods as well as the Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling to Step 8 of the Procedure.
175. In referring to the other matters which had been considered by the Committee including endorsements, Mr. McKay informed the Commission that the following two guidelines at Step 5 had been submitted to the Committee under its revised terms of reference for endorsement:
Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Use of Vegetable Protein Products and Milk Protein Products in Processed Meat and Poultry Products (Appendix IV to ALINORM 85/16) and
Proposed Draft General Guidelines for the Utilization of Vegetable Proteins in Foods (Appendix II to ALINORM 85/30) which were being developed by the Committees on Processed Meat and Poultry Products and on Vegetable Proteins, respectively.
176. The Guidelines contained two alternative proposals concerning the name of the food where Vegetable Protein Products (VPP) partially or wholly substituted the animal protein ingredient of the food. The Commission was informed that this matter had been referred to the 31st session of the Executive Committee which, in turn, had agreed with the view which had been expressed in para 63 of the Report of the 6th Session of the Committee on General Principles. This paragraph, in substance, permitted the use of the name laid down in a Codex standard as part of the name of another similar product not covered by the standard under certain specific conditions (para 139 of ALINORM 85/3). The Commission was informed that while there had been considerable discussion on this matter in the Labelling Committee, member countries had reiterated their divergent points of view on the labelling provisions in the above two guidelines. The Committee on Labelling had, therefore, referred the matter to the 16th Session of the Commission.
177. The 32nd Session of the Executive Committee had made the following observations: regulations on the inclusion of VPP in foods varied widely at the national level; the views expressed by the 31st Session of the Executive Committee were confirmed and would apply to the two Guidelines. The Executive Committee had recommended that the Commission should attempt to reach a consensus on this issue (paras 75–82 of ALINORM 85/4).
178. The Chairman of the Committee on Vegetable Proteins recalled the rationale for establishing the Committee on Vegetable Proteins, namely to facilitate trade in these products and, even more important, to improve the nutrition in countries where products containing the traditional protein ingredients were in short supply or too expensive and to ensure the safety of VPP. In conformity with the present trend to move food legislation away from recipe standards, comprehensive guidelines were being elaborated by CCVP. He indicated that member countries and especially developing countries should make every effort to participate in the work of the Committee to resolve the few problems still requiring attention.
179. The delegation of the United Kingdom, while not opposing the use of other protein products in foods, felt that Codex texts on this matter should ensure that consumers were properly informed of the composition of such products and expressed its disappointment with the views which had been expressed by the 32nd Session of the Executive Committee. The delegation was of the opinion that the statement in para. 63 of the Report of the 6th Session of the Committee on General Principles left too much scope for misuse. It offered its cooperation in the Committee on Vegetable Proteins. This view was supported by the delegations from France, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Thailand, Spain, Indonesia and Austria (in principle).
180. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany had the view that this matter was a fundamental problem and merited, therefore, more attention than reflected in the provisions now contained in the Guidelines. The delegation was of the opinion that the 6th Session of the Committee on General Principles had not come to a conclusion on this topic; however, the advice was not applicable to meat products or milk products. The latter point was supported by the delegation of Austria.
181. The delegation of Denmark supported the solution agreed to by the Executive Committee and pointed out that it did take consumers' interests into account. The three specified conclusions outlined in paragraph 139 of ALINORM 85/3 required that the name should be appropriately qualified and that the General Principles of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods should be complied with. Further the scope section of a Codex standard might indicate whether the name was reserved exclusively for the standardized product. The delegation also expressed the view that it was important to provide advice on this matter to developing countries which have not yet very detailed food legislation. This view was supported by the delegations of Belgium, Kenya, Canada, Ireland, Australia and the United States.
182. The observer of IOCU expressed the view that VPPs should be products in their own right and alternatives to traditional foods. They should not be promoted as substitutes; for new formulations, new designations should be found. The observer of IOCU suggested that guidelines on criteria for the proper description of such products be developed.
183. The delegation of the United States held the view that such new names might not be understood by the consumer and that the names for products containing VPP should relate to the traditional products to indicate their nature. The delegation also stated that VPP should be substituted only where appropriate.
184. The delegations of Hungary, Iraq and Brazil indicated maximum levels of use of VPP stipulated in their countries. The delegation of Iraq also pointed to the need for appropriate methodology to determine VPP in meat products. The delegation of Austria opposed maximum levels.
185. The Commission agreed that the views expressed by the Executive Committee in para 139 of ALINORM 85/3 might not be applicable to all Codex Committees concerned and decided to leave it to these committees to determine whether the labelling provisions for products under consideration, if elaborated in accordance with the views expressed in the Executive Committee, would not mislead the consumer. The Chairman of the Committee on Vegetable proteins indicated that the Committee would attempt to improve its guidelines in order to assist other committees to develop additional guidelines for specific foods.
186. The Commission noted that the above standard had been finalized. It noted also that certain provisions, particularly these involving the labelling of irradiated foods might require further review.
187. The delegation of France stated its opposition to section 5.2.2 dealing with irradiated ingredients in a composite food.
188. The delegation of Thailand stated that it could not accept several provisions of the standard.
Status of the Standard
189. The Commission adopted at Step 8 the Draft Revised Text of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods.
190. Several delegations expressed their satisfaction that the above guidelines had been finalized and recommended their adoption. However, attention was drawn to the fact that the RDA included in Section 3.3.4 had not been thoroughly discussed and had been referred to the CCFSDU for review. The Secretariat indicated that it had referred the Committee's request to FAO and WHO that both organizations should continue with their work on internationally agreed recommendations for the intake of certain nutrients and that the response of the two organizations would be communicated to the CCFSDU and the CCFL in due course.
Status of the Guidelines
191. The Committee adopted at Step 8 the Draft Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling noting that further work was being carried out on appropriate methods of analysis for the determination of nutrients by a Working Group of the CCFL.
192. The Commission was informed that the above guidelines had been developed to assist Codex committees in applying the provisions of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods in Codex Standards being elaborated or revised.
193. The Commission noted that the guidelines followed the provisions of the General Standard and contained, in addition, a provision on non-retail containers. The Commission agreed with a proposal by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany to delete the last two sentences of section 4.2.4.1 (iii).
Status of the Guidelines
194. The Chairman of the Committee proposed that these guidelines be developed outside the Step Procedure and to distribute them together with the Revised General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. The Commission adopted the Draft Guidelines on Labelling Provisions in Codex Standards as amended.
195. The Commission also agreed with the recommendation of the Labelling Committee not to continue with the elaboration of Codex guidelines on the labelling of nonretail containers at the present time.
196. The Commission had before it also ALINORM 85/21 Part I and LIM 16 containing the view of Sweden on this subject.
197. The Commission was informed that the CCFL had, as requested by the Commission at its 15th Session, considered a working paper on advertising as well as legal opinions of FAO and WHO on whether advertising was within the terms of reference of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Commission was informed that the CCFL had given consideration to the legal opinions as well as a draft Code on Advertising and had decided not to pursue this matter at this time. The Commission was also informed that the CCFL would continue with its revision of the General Guidelines on Claims which had been approved by the 15th Session of the Commission.
198. The delegation of Sweden, referring to LIM 16, stated that it was in favour of establishing ethical standards in food advertising for the benefit of consumer protection as well as fair trade practices. The delegation pointed out that food advertising and especially transnational advertising was increasing and that ethical standards should be elaborated within the Codex framework. The legal opinions of FAO and WHO had confirmed that such work was within the terms of reference of CCFL.
199. The delegation of Sweden also pointed out that the Guidelines on Claims elaborated by the Commission applied to labels only and not to advertising. The delegation of Sweden was of the opinion that work on ethical standards in food advertising should continue. Care should be taken not to duplicate the Code established by the International Chamber of Commerce. Sweden proposed that a study should be prepared by a consultant setting out the problems and how to resolve them for submission to the Labelling Committee.
200. The views expressed by the delegation of Sweden were supported by the delegations of Norway, Poland, Finland, Thailand, India, Kenya, Iraq, Ghana, Guinea and Australia. The latter delegation proposed that guidelines might be an appropriate format for Codex recommendations on advertising.
201. Several delegations pointed out that advertising was playing a major role in food promotion and exaggerated claims used in their countries and non-advertised foods were at a disadvantage. Therefore further advice was needed.
202. The delegation of Belgium supported the decision of the CCFL not to undertake work on advertising at the present time. This view was supported by the delegations of the United States, Canada, Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Argentina.
203. The delegation of Canada stated that it had simply performed a secretariat function in drafting the working paper on advertising. The Government of Canada remained firmly opposed to the elaboration of a Code of Practice on Advertising.
204. The delegation of the United States felt that the development of a Code of Practice was not within the Committee's terms of reference.
205. The delegation of Austria had the view that a new study might be carried out and stated that in Austria food legislation covered advertising matters in that country: however, this did not apply to transnational advertising.
206. The observer of IOCU expressed concern as regards the possibility to control claims in advertising and hoped that the CCFL could identify the potential problems and consider them in connection with its work on claims. The observer also supported the Swedish proposal.
207. The Commission noted that about equal numbers of delegations had spoken for and against the Swedish proposal and decided not to prepare a paper at this time, but to refer the comments to the CCFL for evaluation. The Commission requested to be kept informed on this matter.
Other Matters arising from the Reports of the Committee
208. The Commission noted that the CCFL had recommended to the Commission that the labelling sections of all Codex Standards should be reviewed and revised in accordance with the newly adopted revised General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods and the Guidelines on Labelling Provisions in Codex Standards. For this purpose it had also submitted a specific work plan as contained in paras 142–143 of ALINORM 85/22A. The Commission agreed with the above recommendations.
209. The Commission was informed that at several sessions the CCFL had considered the problem of trade barriers created by national labelling provisions established in addition to those contained in the Codex Standard, but that no conclusion had been reached. The Commission agreed with a proposal by the CCFL to refer this matter to the CCGP to be discussed by that Committee in connection with the acceptance procedure.
210. The Commission agreed that all Codex documents should be reviewed and revised as appropriate to reflect the terminology set out in Appendix IV of ALINORM 85/22.
211. The delegation of France informed the Commission, on behalf of the IWO, of the following: the Group on regulations and quality control of the IWO had proposed a draft standard for the labelling of wines which took into account the principles of the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. The provisions on mandatory requirements, being referred to the next General Assembly of the IWO (September 1985) contained the following: designation of the product, name and address of bottler, nominal volume, country of origin, information concerning ingredients, alcohol content.
212. The Commission noted the IWO statement and instructed the Secretariat to inform the IWO that in reviewing the above standard it would be useful to take account of the Revised General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
213. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX. 10, that the Committee on Food Labelling should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Canada.
214. The report of the Seventeenth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (ALINORM 85/12) was presented by the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. A. Feberwee of the Netherlands.
Food Additive Intake
Migrants from Packaging Materials
Consideration of flavours
Industrial and Environmental Contaminants in Food
Specifications for Food Additives
International Numbering System of Food Additives.
216. The Commission noted the limited approach being made by the Committee into the field of packaging materials and reiterated the earlier decision that it had taken while discussing the subject of food packaging under Agenda Item 9.
217. The Commission endorsed the opinion of the Committee that there was a need to set up an ad hoc working group of experts to establish priorities for evaluation of flavours and requested both FAO and WHO to explore the possibilities for convening such a group at an early date. The Commission also agreed that in the meantime the current work in CCFA in this regard should be continued.
218. The delegation of Malaysia expressed the view that since the dietary intake of tin, as reported by the working group on food additive intake, was low, and that as there seemed to be no risk as regards long-term toxicity, the figures for maximal levels of tin in processed foods should not be lowered below 250 mg/kg. The views of Malaysia were supported by the delegations of India and Indonesia.
219. The Commission asked the CCFA to consider the question raised by Malaysia and supported by the delegations of India and Indonesia at its next session.
220. The Commission noted that the draft standard for Food Grade Salt had been held at Step 8 and that it had asked (i) the CCFA to re-examine the sections especially on contaminants and (ii) other relevant Codex Committees to review the sections on labelling, hygiene and methods of analysis with a view to endorsing them. The Commission agreed to reconsider the standard for adoption at the present session.
221. The Commission noted that the sections on labelling, hygiene and methods of analysis in the standard for Food Grade Salt had been endorsed by the relevant Codex Committees with minor changes in the text which were not considered substantial. The CCFA had considered the section on contaminants at its 17th Session, but had been unable to come to a consensus in making recommendations for maximum levels for contaminants (para 165, ALINORM 85/12). The Committee had agreed that the question of intake was a vital one in arriving at a proper decision on the maximum allowable contaminant levels in Food Grade Salt, and had sent out a circular letter (CL 1984/26-FA) to governments seeking more information on (i) contaminant content of salt, (ii) intake of salt and (iii) approach of governments to establishing maximum levels of contaminants in food. The Commission noted that, on the basis of the information gathered as a result of the circular letter, the CCFA hoped to arrive at internationally acceptable levels of contaminants at its 18th Session to be held in November 1985.
Status of the Standard on Food Grade Salt
222. The Commission noted that the standard for Food Grade Salt, work on which had been completed except for the provisions on contaminants, had been before the Committee for consideration for quite some time. Considering the urgent need for the standard by the industry and by many of the member countries, the Commission adopted the Draft Standard for Food Grade Salt at Step 8 of the procedure, with the proviso that the provisions on contaminants be included later into the standard, when finalized by the CCFA.
223. The delegations of Thailand, Argentina and the Federal Republic of Germany reserved their positions regarding this decision. The delegation of Thailand expressed a reservation, in view of the high amount (97%) of sodium chloride that the standard required. The delegations of Argentina and Federal Republic of Germany expressed reservations, in view of the long list of food additives included in the standard.
224. The Commission adopted the specifications in categories I and II of Appendix IX of ALINORM 85/12 as advisory texts not subject to acceptance.
225. The Commission had before it ALINORM 85/21-Part I containing in paragraphs 12–16 a report on other matters arising from the Report of the 17th Session of the Committee, which were of interest to the Commission. The Commission agreed with the actions described in the above-mentioned report.
226. In the English version of the Procedural Manual (5th Edition, Page 29), the definition of ‘food additive’ speaks of a substance which is not normally used as a “typical ingredient of the food”. The reference should be to a substance which is not normally used as a “typical ingredient of food” in general.
227. The Commission agreed to the deletion of the word “the” from line 3 in the definition of “food additive” in the English version of the Procedural Manual, thus bringing the English text into conformity with the French and Spanish texts.
228. The Commission agreed with the action taken by the CCFA (ALINORM 85/12, paras 93–97, Appendix III) to change the endorsement status of certain food additives to be in line with their revised ADI status.
229. The Commission noted that the Committee had redrafted the Carry-Over Principle by combining the various texts adopted by the Commission into a single consolidated statement. Comments on the redraft of the Carry-Over Principle were being sought from member governments at Step 3.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
230. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX. 10 that the Codex Committee on Food Additives should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the Netherlands.
231. The Commission had before it the Reports of the 15th, 16th and 17th Sessions of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) (ALINORM 85/24, 85/24A and 85/24B), respectively, and addenda to these documents. Amendments proposed to maximum residue limits (MRLs) at Steps 5 and 8 were contained in ALINORM 85/43 - Part I and Add. 1 and Conference Room Document LIM 19. The Commission also had before it the Report of the First Session of the Group of Developing Countries in Asia concerning Pesticide Residue Problems (ALINORM 85/31) and a document prepared by India on the need to label bulk food containers as regards pesticide residue content (Conference Room Document-LIM 2).
232. The Reports were introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Ir. A.J. Pieters, who pointed out that participation in the Committee was increasing, reaching 46 countries in 1984. An examination of participation showed that a core of around 35 countries always participated at sessions of the CCPR. Continuity in participation was necessary in order to derive full benefits from the work of the CCPR. This is why the CCPR had recommended that international organizations, such as FAO and WHO, should identify sources of funds to assist participation by developing countries. A large number of MRLs and several publications in a variety of related fields (Ref. CAC/PR series and Volume XIII of the Codex Alimentarius) illustrated the achievements of the CCPR. The Committee had, at its 17th Session, referred a number of recommendations relating to the needs of developing countries, the acceptance of Codex MRLs and the need to control PCBs to the Commission. Ir. Pieters expressed his disappointment with the number of acceptances of Codex MRLs so far received. He hoped that the document ‘Recommended Regulatory Practices to facilitate Acceptance and Use of Codex Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticide Residues in Foods’ (ALINORM 85/24A-Add.2) would prove helpful in reaching harmonization of MRLs at the international level. Ir. Pieters then outlined briefly the on-going work of the CCPR, including work on environmental contaminants.
233. The Commission agreed to consider MRLs at Steps 5 and 8, substantive and nonsubstantive amendments to Codex MRLs together, without entering into technical discussions (see ALINORM 85/24 - Add.1, 85/24A - Add.1 and 85/24B - Add.1). In conformity with the established procedures and the recommendations of the CCPR, the Commission reached the following decisions:
All temporary MRLs being held by the Commission at Step 8 pending toxicological reevaluation of the pesticides by the JMPR should be returned to Step 7 of the Procedure. This was done for the sake of consistency, since other temporary MRLs were also being held at Step 7 by the CCPR for the same reason. (These were for: captafol, fenitrothion, paraquat, chlorothalonil, sec-butylamine, cyanofenphos, acephate and menthamidophos in ALINORM 85/24 - Add. 1).
All MRLs for cyhexatin (ALINORM 85/24 - Add.1) should be returned to Step 7 so that they can be considered by the CCPR together with MRLs for azocyclotin, a closely related pesticide.
All MRLs at Step 5 in ALINORM 85/24 - Add.1, 85/24A - Add.1 and 85/24B - Add.1 should be advanced to Step 6 of the Procedure, unless the omission of Steps 6 and 7 had been recommended by the CCPR.
All MRLs indicated in ALINORM 85/24B - Add.1 as being at Step “5/8” (i.e. MRLs at Step 5 where Step 6 and 7 have already been carried out by the CCPR) should be adopted at Step 5 and also adopted at Step 8 as Codex MRLs (these were for cypermethrin, permethrin, etrimfos, deltamethrin and bendiocarb).
All MRLs at Step 5 where the CCPR had recommended the omission of Steps 6 and 7 should be adopted as Codex MRLs, except temporary MRLs (i.e. where the temporary ADIs were pending reevaluation by the JMPR) which should only be advanced to Step 7.
All MRLs at Step 8 (i.e. those supported by firm ADIs) should be adopted as Codex MRLs.
Comments received from Governments at Step 8 should be indicated in the Report of the Commission and brought to the attention of the CCPR, where appropriate.
234. Comments had been received on the MRLs listed in ALINORM 85/24 - Add. 1 from the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, The Netherlands and Thailand. Comments relating to safety aspects were as follows: objection was raised to the MRLs for carbophenothion in view of the very low ADI estimated for this pesticide. Similar objections were also raised in connection with methamidophos and fenthion. Results of toxicological testing of thiabendazole in progress whould be referred to the JMPR in order to clarify certain questions. Recent tests carried out with chlorothalonil should be evaluated together with the results of further on-going studies. The results of recent toxicological tests on cypermethrin should be clarified (see ALINORM 85/43 - Part I and Add. 1 and Conference Room Document 19). Comments had been received on the MRLs listed in ALINORM 85/24A - Add. 1 from Ireland, Denmark, France and the Netherlands. The comments of the Federal Republic of Germany were received by the Secretariat too late for inclusion in a working document. Comments relating to safety aspects were as follows: in view of the high consumption of cereal products in some countries MRLs for etrimfos were not acceptable. The MRLs for isophenphos and phorate were not acceptable in view of the low ADI of the pesticide. Toxicological studies for aldicarb were considered to be deficient. Examination of the effects of chlorpyriphos and isofenphos on cholinergic reacting organs was considered necessary before further MRLs could be contemplated. Further study of deltamethrin, metalaxyl isofenphos, permethrin, pirimiphos-methyl, thiabendazol and thiomethon was considered to be necessary.
235. The Commission noted that the withdrawal of ADIs or temporary ADIs by the JMPR affected Codex MRLs and that the Commission, at the present session, was facing two types of situation:
where ADIs had been withdrawn but where JMPR and/or CCPR would shortly reconsider the pesticide, and
where ADIs had been withdrawn and where no further toxicological data were to be expected.
236. The Commission therefore agreed as follows:
The Codex MRLs or temporary MRLs for binapacryl, sec.-butylamine, chinomethionat, folpet and demeton-S-methyl should be referred to the CCPR for reconsideration, and
The Codex MRLs for cyanofenphos, coumaphos and folpet should be withdrawn. As a consequence, these Codex MRLs would become ‘guideline levels’, except for a cyanofenphos which is no longer manufactured and for which no guideline levels need be specified.
237. The Commission was informed of a number of non-substantive amendments to the definitions of the residues of certain pesticides as indicated in Conference Room Document LIM 7 (the new residue definitions will also be given in Part 2 of the Codex Guide Concerning Pesticide Residues, CAC/PR 2–1985). The Commission was also informed of certain editorial changes to the description of food commodities to which Codex MRLs applied.
238. The Commission agreed to the above changes being made.
Other Matters arising from the Reports of the CCPR
239. The Commission was informed that the CCPR had drawn up a glossary of terms required for its work. Some of these were revised versions of terms included in existing Codex documents, while others were new terms or terms adopted and used by the JMPR.
240. The Commission agreed that the Secretariat should include these terms in Codex publications as appropriate.
241. The Commission had before it the above document (ALINORM 85/24A - Add.2) developed by the Working Group on Regulatory Principles of the CCPR. It also had before it a Resolution adopted by the CCPR (Annex I to Appendix V, ALINORM 85/24B) urging governments to make use of the ‘Recommended National Practice’ document quoted above and to accept, as a matter of national policy, Codex MRLs in furthering the aims of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
242. The Commission endorsed both the ‘Recommended National Practice’ document and the Resolution quoted above as its own Recommendations.
243. The Commission had before it a draft Resolution adopted by the CCPR (Annex I to Appendix VII, ALINORM 85/24B) urging governments to take such measures as would result in the reduction of contamination of food by PCBs.
244. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany was of the opinion that the Codex Alimentarius Commission might not be the appropriate body to make such recommendations and that existing environmental contamination by PCBs required the establishment of appropriate maximum levels set for PCBs in foods by the CCPR. The delegation of the Netherlands pointed out that the recommendations in question were only a first step and that the CCPR intended to set appropriate maximum levels for certain foods. There were, however, many difficulties in this respect, including the matter of reaching agreement on the methods of analysis to be used (see paras 229–235, ALINORM 85/24B).
245. The Commission endorsed the draft Resolution as its own Recommendation.
246. As to pesticide residues in Rabbit meat, in the light of paragraph 282 concerning Rabbit on page 43 of ALINORM 85/24A indicating that the working group had concluded that rabbit meat could not be included in categories of carcass meat or poultry, the delegation of China suggested that pesticide residues in frozen rabbit and low fat meat should be treated in the same way as fish and fishery products. The reason for this was that the content of fat in frozen rabbit averaged about 2 percent and was very similar to fish products. The delegation of China requested that this matter be referred to the upcoming session of the Codex Committee on Pecticide Residues for further discussion.
247. The Commission had before it Recommendations developed by the above Working Group and adopted by the CCPR (Annex I, Appendix IV, ALINORM 85/24B). The Recommendations covered various aspects relating to the needs of developing countries aimed at improving pesticide residue control.
248. The Commission endorsed the Recommendations and requested the Secretariat to bring them to the attention of governments and of interested international organizations.
249. The Commission had before it the Report of the 1st Session of the above Group (ALINORM 85/31). The Secretariat explained that the Report of the Group contained a matter of fundamental importance relating to the acceptance by governments of Codex MRLs. The Group had recommended to governments to adopt Codex standards but, in any event, to apply Codex MRLs to imports of food products in the interest of facilitating trade. This meant either giving “limited acceptance” or applying national maximum residus limits where these were less stringent than the Codex MRL, or otherwise allowing free distribution of food in conformity with Codex MRLs.
250. Developing countries were ready to adopt Codex MRLs, but were hesitating because they were awaiting the adoption of Codex MRLs by other trading partners in the developed countries.
251. The Observer from EEC indicated that a communication from the Community concerning the updating of the 4th, 5th and 6th Series of Codex MRLs covering 13 pesticides (additional to the 16 pesticides communicated previously) had been distributed. This communication indicated the position of the Community and of certain of its Member States, its legislation in the matter being optional. The Commission endorsed the Resolution of the Group of Developing Countries in Asia relating to the acceptance of Codex MRLs and noted with satisfaction the statement of the Observer from EEC.
252. The Commission had before it a Conference Room Document (LIM 2) prepared by India. The delegation of India, in introducing the document, stressed the need for an indication on the label or in accompanying documents of the names of pesticides likely to be present in food commodities prior to their export. In view of the limited analytical capabilities available in developing countries, such information would facilitate the detection of pesticide residues in the importing countries. Furthermore analysis of pesticide residues to check for compliance with the MRLs of the importing countries was important to protect the consumer.
253. Several delegations stated that the Indian proposal amounted to a requirement for the mandatory label declaration of contaminants in food and that such declaration would also involve great practical difficulties.
254. The Commission agreed that this matter be referred to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues and the Codex Committee on Labelling for consideration.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
255. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX. 10, that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the Netherlands.
256. The Commission had before it the reports of the 19th and 20th Sessions of the above Committee (ALINORMS 85/13 and 85/13A) which were introduced by the rapporteur Dr. R.W. Weik (USA). The rapporteur with the concurrence of the delegation of Switzerland, reminded the Commission that the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for the Collection, Processing and Marketing of Natural Mineral Waters which the Committee proposed for adoption at Step 8 of the Procedure would be considered in conjunction with the European Standard for Natural Mineral Water since the End Product Specifications, which had been reviewed by an ad hoc Working Group of the Committee, were identical in both documents and could usefully be discussed together at that time (see paras 346–354).
257. The Commission noted that the Committee had endorsed the hygiene provisions for the following:
Draft General Standard for Vegetable Protein Products
Draft Standard for Soy Protein Products
Draft Standard for Wheat Gluten
Draft Standard for Certain Pulses
Standard for Pulpy Mango Products
Standard for Guava Nectars
Standard for Whole Maize Meal
Standard for Degermed Maize Meal and Grits
258. The Commission was informed that, at its 19th Session, the Committee had agreed to amend the General Principles to include certain provisions for “lot” and for building facilities.
259. At its 20th Session the delegation of the Netherlands had proposed a further series of amendments which the Committee agreed to consider. The agreed amendments were attached to ALINORM 85/13A as Appendix VI and were submitted to the Commission for adoption at Step 8.
Status of the Amendments to the General Principles of Food Hygiene
260. The Commission noted that the amendments were not extensive and adopted them at Step 8 of the Procedure.
261. The Commission noted that the above had been prepared for addition to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Pre-Cooked Frozen Shrimps and Prawns as end product specifications. The Criteria had been discussed and agreed by both the Committee on Food Hygiene and the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products and the Committee now recommended that Steps 6 and 7 be omitted and the provisions adopted at Step 8.
Status of the Microbiological Criteria for Pre-cooked Frozen Shrimps and Prawns
262. The Commission agreed with the Committee's recommendation and adopted the Microbiological Criteria at Step 8.
263. The delegation of Poland was of the opinion that the Criteria should stay at Step 6 for further comment by governments.
264. The Commission noted that at its 31st Session, the Executive Committee had agreed to the amendments proposed by the Committee on Food Hygiene (ALINORM 85/3 paras 143–149) and that subsequently the Committee had recommended that the microbiological specifications be advanced to Step 5 and that Steps 6 and 7 be omitted. (ALINORM 85/13A paras 47–50)
Status of the Amendment
265. The Commission agreed to the measures recommended by the Committee and adopted the end product specification to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Dessicated Coconut at Step 8.
266. The Commission noted that the above amendments had been issued at Step 3 of the Procedure at the 19th Session of the Committee (see ALINORM 85/13 paras 99–110). At its 20th Session, the Committee had received no government comments and had concluded that the proposed amendment was acceptable.
267. It had, therefore, recommended to the Commission that the amended text should be advanced to Step 5 of the Procedure and that Steps 6 and 7 be omitted.
Status of the Amendment of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Egg Products to include Melange
268. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Committee and adopted the amended text at Step 8 of the Procedure.
269. The Commission was informed that a Working Group on Low Acid and Acidified Low Acid Canned Foods had met in Chipping Campden in April 1984 and had proposed a series of amendments to the Code which modified the introduction, the table of contents and sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 (see ALINORM 85/13A Appendix V Annex 1). The Committee had agreed that the amendments should be incorporated in the Code and requested approval to initiate the amendment procedure.
270. The Commission approved the Committee's proposal.
271. The delegation of China, as a new member of the Commission, expressed its wish to participate fully in the work of the Commission in the interests of consumers and the promotion of international trade.
272. The delegation gave a brief account of developments in food hygiene and food control in China.
273. Along with the economic development as well as the improvement of the people's living standard, the food industry and trade in China are developing rapidly. In order to strengthen the management of food hygiene, to prevent contamination of food and to assure the safety and health of the people, the Provisional Law of the People's Republic of China on Food Hygiene was adopted on November 19th, 1982 by the Standing Committee of the 5th National People's Congress which stipulates precisely the hygienic conditions and requirements, the management systems surveillance inspection at each step of the procedure, including the production and processing of raw food materials as well as its consumption. The implementation of this provisional law on food hygiene, has functioned very well for improving the hygienic quality of food in China and also raising the level of management of food hygiene. At present, food hygiene surveillance agencies have been established at the health administration services at all levels. Simultaneously, these agencies have been established in transportation systems, factories, mines, farms and public dining rooms. Promotion and education on these aspects are in progress and have a significant effect in improving food hygiene and thus national welfare.
274. Appropriate systems, regulations and methods, state standards, professional standards and enterprise standards have all been established by production and commercial departments at all levels in the field of distribution. Standards for safe usage of pesticides, methods for testing the effectiveness of pesticides in the field (provisional) and regulations for the registration of pesticides have been developed.
275. The Ministry of Public Health and the State Administration of Import and Export Commodity Inspection, together with other relevant Departments have developed Provisions on the Administration of Imported Food Hygiene, Procedures for the Surveillance and Inspection of Imported Food Hygiene, Provisions of the People's Republic of China on Sanitation of Food for Export, Minimum Sanitary Requirements for Factories and Storehouses of Food for Export and Detailed Rules for Registration of Factories and Storehouses of Food for Export. All the above-mentioned regulations will be controlled by food surveillance and inspection stations (for import) and China Commodity Inspection Bureaux (for export) at respective ports.
276. The delegation stated that it would like to propose that authorities dealing with food import and export trade should require the importer to provide to the exporter the food hygienic requirements of the importing country, and, at delivery, the exporter provide the importer with official hygienic inspection certificates so as to foster the development of food trade between various countries.
277. China recognizes that there is still room for future improvement on food hygiene and is willing to exchange experience with colleagues and friends from different countries at this session.
278. It expressed its support of the aims of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and was ready to share efforts with all members of the Commission to protect the interests of the consumers and to promote the international trade.
279. The Commission noted with interest the above statement of the delegation of China.
280. In concluding his report Dr. Weik informed the Commission that the Sub-committee on Microbiological Criteria of the Committee on Food Protection, Food and Nutrition Board, National Research Council, USA, had recently issued a publication entitled “An Evaluation of the Role of Microbiological Criteria for Foods and Food Ingredients” (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1985) which the considered could provide useful background material for many of the subjects considered by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
281. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX. 10 that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the USA.
282. The Commission had before it the Report of the 14th Session of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) (ALINORM 85/23). The delegation of Hungary, in introducing the Report, pointed to the achievements of the Committee in clarifying the purpose and role of Codex methods of analysis and sampling and in establishing appropriate working relationships with other bodies. Criteria for the selection of Codex methods of analysis and sampling had been finalized and the obligations falling on governments accepting methods of analysis included in Codex standards had been clarified. Obligations consequent upon acceptance and other issues in relation to Codex methods of sampling were under discussion, and until these were resolved the CCMAS did not consider itself to be in a position to endorse sampling procedures in Codex standards.
283. Codex methods of analysis were under review both by Codex Commodity Committees and by the CCMAS and this represented an activity which should be accelerated.
284. Good cooperation existed between the CCMAS and international organizations as evidenced by the holding of regular sessions of the ‘Inter Agency Meeting’ (IAM) organized by the ISO Central Secretariat and the Hungarian National Codex Committee. The report of the IAM had been included as Appendix VI to the Report of the CCMAS.
285. The importance of the work of the CCMAS was evidenced by growing participation at sessions of the CCMAS both by developed and developing countries. The last session was attended by 30 countries, including the USSR and China, and by 11 International Organizations.
286. The Hungarian delegation drew attention to Appendix IV of the Report of the Committee which included recommendations to the Commission concerning the acceptance by governments of Codex Methods of Analysis. The CCMAS was considering this question in relation to Codex sampling methods and would report to the next session of the Commission.
287. The Commission considered the recommendations of the CCMAS concerning the acceptance of Codex methods of analysis included in Codex standards (see Appendix IV to ALINORM 85/23). It noted that the CCMAS had identified the obligations which, in its opinion, should fall on governments accepting Codex methods of analysis included in Codex standards. As regards Codex ‘defining methods’ these should be subject to acceptance as integral parts of Codex standards. Codex ‘reference’ methods should be obligatory, i.e. subject to acceptance, only for cases of disputes concerning the results of analysis. Codex ‘alternative approved methods’, on the other hand, were only advisory and there could be any number of such Codex methods listed in Codex standards. As regards the fourth category of methods, the ‘tentative’ methods, there was no obligation to use these and they were not even advisory, since they were still pending evaluation by the CCMAS.
288. The delegation of France was in agreement with the view of the Secretariat that the recommendations of the CCMAS concerning the obligations falling on governments accepting Codex methods should be considered by the Codex Committee on General Principles. This was so since there might be implications for the Codex Acceptance Procedures.
289. The delegation of India was in agreement with the CCMAS as regards the obligatory role of Codex ‘defining’ and ‘reference’ methods. However, it pointed out that it was precisely for this reason why attention must be given to the needs of developing countries for simplified methods. The Secretariat pointed out that Codex ‘defining’ methods were very often simple empirical methods not requiring sophisticated equipment. Any difficulties which might arise would be with Codex ‘reference’ methods the use of which, however, was obligatory only in cases of dispute.
290. The delegation of Guinea pointed out that the problem of methods of analysis was of great importance since results depended on the methods used. The continuously increasing number of food products on the market, authorized pesticides and food additives, made developing countries interested in simplfied methods. The delegation expressed its appreciation to the CCMAS for its efforts in this direction. However, it wished to draw the Committee's attention to the choice of analytical materials which could help to attain the results expected. In view of the situation in many developing countries as regards laboratory equipment and reagents, the delegation of Guinea supported the proposals made concerning the need to provide assistance for developing countries to enable them to participate in the work of Codex committees.
291. The Commission agreed that the recommendations of the CCMAS concerning the acceptance by governments of Codex methods of analysis should be referred to the Codex Committee on General Principles. Comments should be requested from the governments on the recommendations of the CCMAS for consideration by the Codex Committee on General Principles. The CCMAS was urged to take the needs of developing countries into account when selecting official Codex methods and also to identify simplified methods where appropriate.
292. The Commission expressed its appreciation to the Delegation of Hungary and to the ISO Secretariat for their support of Codex work in the field of analysis and sampling, especially through the ‘Inter Agency Meetings’ held in conjunction with sessions of the CCMAS.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
293. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Hungary.
