358. The Commission had before it the Report of the 17th Session of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables (ALINORM 85/20 and Add.1). The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. G. Parlet (USA) introduced the Report, outlining the work carried out by the Committee and suggesting to the Commission a way of handling the numerous points under this agenda item. He also indicated that the USA was in agreement with the view which had been expressed by the Committee that there was some doubt as to whether a sufficient agenda could be drawn from the programme of future work of the Committee to justify a further session and that, therefore, the USA was proposing the adjournment of the Committee sine die.
359. The Commission was informed that Dr. R. Schaffner, previous Chairman of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables, had retired. The Commission expressed its gratitude to Dr. Schaffner for his valuable contribution to Codex work and wished him a long and happy retirement.
360. The Commission had before it the above Draft Standard (Appendix II, ALINORM 85/20) which had been held at Step 8 by the previous session of the Commission, in order that certain questions (relating to Sections 2, 3, 4 and 7) could be further discussed by the Committee. The Commission noted that the Committee had been able to resolve the issues and that the Standard was ready for adoption at Step 8.
361. The delegations of the UK and Austria were not in agreement with the decision of the Commission to set a maximum limit of 30% for moisture content for certain types of soft dates since such a high moisture content could impair shelf-life. The delegation of the United Kingdom wished to have recorded its reservation concerning the question of moisture content in this standard. The delegation of Iraq informed the Commission of an extensive study carried out in that country regarding section 3.2.3 of the standard dealing with allowances for defects. It, therefore, had reservations on this section and proposed that the standard be held until the results of the study carried out in Iraq could be considered by the Committee. The delegation of Switzerland also indicated that it had reservations on certain provisions regarding defects (e.g. 3.2.2(h) and (i). The delegation of Argentina indicated that it had reservations regarding the provisions for moisture content and treatment using glucose.
362. The Commission discussed a proposal of Iraq to delete in section 2.1 (f) reference to dipping since other methods of humidification, e.g. spraying were also used. The delegation of France doubted whether spraying of dried dates would be sufficient to rehydrate the product. Nothing that the important thing was that the product be in conformity with the standard, rather than how the correct humidity of the product should be achieved, the Commission decided to delete reference to dipping in section 2.1 (f).
Status of the Draft Standard for Dates
363. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard for Dates, as amended, at Step 8 of the Procedure. It noted the study carried out in Iraq in relation to the provisions for defects and also noted that there might be a need in the future to amend the Standard in the light of information to be provided by Iraq.
364. The Commission had before it the above draft standard (App. VIII, ALINORM 85/20) and noted that the Standard had been revised by Brazil and that the Committee had agreed that the Standard was ready for adoption at Step 8.
365. The Commission noted the objections of the delegations of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Federal Republic of Germany, Austria, Argentina, Iraq and France to a maximum level of 250 mg/kg for tin. It was pointed out that this maximum level had been arrived at on the basis of extensive analytical data. The Commission's attention was brought to a recommendation by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives that a level of 200 mg/kg should not be exceeded as this level might cause gastric irritation. The delegation of the Netherlands, supported by a number of delegations, therefore, favoured a reduction of the maximum level to 200 mg/kg, as a matter of principle. A number of other delegations were in favour of maintaining a maximum level of 250 mg/kg noting that this was a matter for the Codex Committee on Food Additives to consider.
366. The Commission, after a full discussion, decided not to change the maximum level for tin but agreed to include a footnote in the Standard indicating that the maximum level remained under review.
367. The delegation of Argentina was in favour of a mandatory declaration of the country of origin on the label and proposed that the pH level should not exceed 4.5. The delegation of France expressed a reservation concerning the food additives section of the Standard.
Status of the Draft Standard for Canned Palmitos
368. The Commission adopted the draft Standard for Canned Palmito, as amended, at Step 8 of the Procedure.
369. The Commission had before it the above draft standard (App. VIII, ALINORM 85/20). It was noted that the Committee had concluded that the Standard was ready for adoption at Step 8.
370. The Commission agreed to proceed with the maximum level for tin as with the Standard for Canned Palmitos (see para 366). The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany expressed a reservation concerning the maximum level for contaminants.
371. The delegation of France pointed out that Section 6.1.4, which prescribed minimum drained weight requirements for all styles of presentation, did not apply to chestnuts prepared without liquid packing medium. The Commission agreed to amend Section 6.1.4 editorially by indicating that the drained weight provision did not apply to such styles of canned chestnuts. As regards products without packing medium, the Commission considered that Section 6.1.1 on minimum fill would ensure that the consumer would not be misled. In this connection the Commission noted that Codex method CAC/RM 45-1972 would be relevant.
Status of the Draft Standard for Canned Chestnuts and Chestnut Puree
372. The Commission adopted the draft Standard for Canned Chestnuts and Chestnuts Puree, as amended, at Step 8 of the Codex Procedure.
373. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Parlet, informed the Commission that the Standard for Honey had been considered in detail by the Committee and that the only remaining controversial points were the provisions for HMF content and diastase value.
374. During the discussion of the Standard for Honey, a number of delegations expressed the opinion that the proposed draft world-wide standard represented a lowering in the minimum quality requirements for honey. This was stated to be so, since sections 3.9 and 3.10 were directly related to the quality of honey. Lowering of these requirements was considered by these delegations to be an unfortunate development since, as a result, a number of countries would not be able to accept the world-wide Codex standard for honey.
375. Other delegations were of the opposite view and considered that sections 3.9 and 3.10 of the honey standard required further consideration, since recent scientific work had demonstrated that the relationship between diastase activity and HMF content and the quality of honey was in doubt. These delegations stated that the present Codex European Regional Standard for Honey had an adverse economic effect on tropical and subtropical apiculture and trade in honey from these regions. In order to prevent adulteration of honey, provisions for dextrins and glucose could be included in the Standard.
376. Other delegations pointed to a need to reconsider certain other sections of the Standard, such as section 3.8 on acidity in connection with certain types of honeys, sections 3.4 moisutre content and section 7 dealing with methods of analysis and sampling.
Status of the Proposed Draft Standard for Honey
377. The Commission decided to advance the Standard to Step 6 of the Procedure noting that there were still opposing views especially in relation to sections 3.9 and 3.10 which should be reconciled.
378. The Commission agreed to advance the proposed draft standard for cashew kernels to Step 6 of the Procedure (see ALINORM 85/20 - Add.1).
379. The Commission had before it a number of amendments to Codex standards submitted by the Committee to the Commission for final adoption. These were as follows:
inclusion of a general provision on styles in certain Codex standards for processed fruits and vegetables as given in App. III, ALINORM 85/20 (considered to be a non-substantive amendment by the Committee);
revision of the provision for packing medium in certain Codex standards for canned fruits as given in App. IV, ALINORM 85/20 (considered to be a consequential amendment by the Committee);
inclusion of a requirement for date of minimum durability in all Codex standards for processed fruits and vegetables, as given in App. V, ALINORM 85/20 (considered to be a consequential amendment by the Committee);
revision of the standard on methods of analysis in certain Codex standards for processed fruits and vegetables as given in App. IV, ALINORM 85/20 (at Step 5 with the recommendation that Steps 6 and 7 be omitted), and
inclusion of provisions on contaminants in Codex standards for canned fruits and vegetables as given below (at Step 5 with the recommendation that Steps 6 and 7 be omitted);
lead 1 mg/kg in all canned fruits and vegetables, except tomato concentrate
lead 1.5 mg/kg in tomato paste concentrate
tin 250 mg/kg in all canned fruits and vegetables.
Status of the Proposed Amendments
380. The Commission adopted the proposed amendments mentioned above and requested the Secretariat to take appropriate action to revise the Codex standards. As regards the provisions for contaminants it was agreed that a similar footnote should be provided as had been discussed under the Standard for Canned Palmito (see paragraph 366).
Consideration of Other Matters Arising from the Report of the Committee
381. The Commission had before it ALINORM 85/20 and ALINORM 85/21 - Part I and a Conference Room Document (LIM 4) prepared by Thailand. The matters on which the Commission was requested to take action are given below.
382. The Commission noted that the Committee had reached agreement on the extension of the list of fruit ingredients and on the name of the product in order to accommodate the needs of producing countries. The addition of the following fruit ingredients had been proposed by the Committee: watermelon and carambola (in section 2.1.2 of the Standard, at 5% min, 15% max, and 5% min, 20% max respectively). As regards the name of the product, the Committee had recommended the name ‘tropical fruit salad’, ‘tropical fruit cocktail’ or ‘tropical fruit mix’. The delegation of Iraq did not consider the name ‘tropical fruit salad’ to be suitable.
383. The Commission adopted the amendments in paragraph 382 and requested the secretariat to take appropriate action.
384. The delegation of Thailand expressed preference for grapes to be a basic fruit ingredient, i.e. not optional. The Commission took note of this remark.
385. The Commission had before it Appendix IX, ALINORM 83/20 (reproduced in App I to ALINORM 85/21 - Part I) and noted that the proposed amendment related merely to the size of the sample to be taken. A number of issues in connection with sampling still required to be clarified by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.
386. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany was of the opinion that a reduction in sample size should only be made on a sound statistical basis and was, therefore, not in favour of amending the Sampling Plans. The delegation of the United Kingdom was not in favour of amending the Codex Sampling Plans without first resolving issues such as the purpose and status of Codex Sampling Procedures.
387. The Commission adopted the proposed amendment to the Codex Sampling Plans for Prepackaged Foods at Step 8 of the Procedure.
388. The delegation of Thailand introduced Conference Room Document LIM4 and explained that pineapples grown in Thailand had a core material which was soft and edible and of conical form. Using present coring methods it was possible to be in conformity either with the provision for drained weight or with the limit for core material in the Codex standard, but not with both. For this reason the Codex standard could not be fully complied with. Thailand, therefore, proposed that the specification regarding content of core material be deleted from CODEX STAN 42-1981. In addition, Thailand requested that a more definite distinction should be made between the styles “broken slices” and “pieces”.
389. The Commission decided to refer this matter to the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables for consideration with a view to amending the Codex Standard for Canned Pineapple.
390. The Commission noted that the Committee had considered a request of the Coordinating Committee for Asia to delete the provisions for colours and flavours from the Codex Standards for Canned Pineapple, Canned Fruit Cocktail, Canned Peas, and Canned Mature Processed Peas (see App. III, ALINORM 83/15). The Committee had agreed that the colours and flavours should not be deleted (paras 77–78, ALINORM 85/20).
391. The Commission accepted the view of the Committee.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
392. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee for Processed Fruits and Vegetables should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the USA.
Draft Standard for Honey (at Step 7)
Draft Standard for Cashew Kernels (at Step 7)
Amendment of the Codex Standard for Canned Pineapple (proposed by Thailand)
Proposed Draft Standards for Canned Mango Products
395. The Observer from MARINALG suggested that Codex should address the problem of residues of pesticides, antibiotics and processing aids (e.g. phenols) in honey.
396. The Commission had before it the Report of the 16th Session of the Group of Experts (ALINORM 85/14) and ALINORM 85/43 Part V. The Chairman of the Group of Experts also indicated that ALINORM 85/42 contained an Outline of Future Work of the Group of Experts and that Proposals for Amendments of Codex Standards for Fruit Juices and Fruit Nectars had been submitted by the International Federation of Fruit Juice Producers (IFFJP) (LIM 10).
397. The Chairman of the Group of Experts, Professor Dr. W. Pilnik (Netherlands) pointed out that increasing participation of developing countries reflected also increasing industrial fruit utilization in those countries and this, in his opinion, required a certain flexibility in the philosophy and format of standardization of fruit juices. The Chairman of the Group of Experts informed the Commission that the Group was now preparing General Standards for certain categories of products to cover those products which were not covered by individual standards. He also informed the Commission that the current programme of the work of the Group of Experts included Guidelines for Mixed Fruit Juices and Fruit Nectars, revision of methods of analysis and sampling and a survey of contaminants.
398. The Commission noted that the above Standard followed the usual format for fruit nectars and that the relevant provisions had been endorsed or temporarily endorsed by the respective committees. The Chairman of the Group of Experts also pointed out that this was the first nectar standard which did not contain a minimum for total solids but a maximum requirement for total soluble solids; furthermore the use of lime juice as an acidifying agent had been permitted as an alternative to lemon juice.
Status of the Standard
399. The Commission adopted at Step 8 the Draft Standard for Guava Nectar Preserved Exclusively by Physical Means.
400. The delegation of France, while not opposing adoption of the Standard reiterated its reservations made at the 16th Session of the Group of Experts concerning the use of lime juice and of the food acids, malic and citric acid. The delegation of Thailand wished to record that the minimum fruit content should be lowered from 25% m/m to 20% m/m.
401. The Chairman of the Group of Experts informed the Commission that this Standard followed the usual format for nectars. However, the Standard contained a labelling provision in Section 7.1.1 which permitted the use of the name mango juice for products of not less than 50% m/m fruit ingredient in countries where the product was traditionally known as such. This accommodated those markets where these products had been introduced as “mango juice” without actually complying with the definition of fruit juice approved by the Group of Experts. The Chairman of the Group of Experts pointed out that a footnote required governments to state their requirements with regard to the name of the food and that the CCFL had already adopted section 7.1.1. He also drew attention to the amended name of the standard which represented a compromise.
402. The delegation of Switzerland stated that it could not accept such a compromise, especially since the designation “nectar” had evolved from the Codex standards and was now generally accepted.
403. The delegations of Switzerland, Belgium and France reiterated their reservations against the Standard.
404. The delegation of Austria shared the concern of the delegation of Switzerland but did not oppose adoption at Step 8 of the Standard.
405. The delegation of Thailand also did not oppose adoption but wished to have recorded that the use of beta-carotene be permitted and consequently the section on organoleptic properties be amended.
406. The delegation of Brazil felt that the Standard should be held at Step 8 to allow for further consideration.
Status of the Standard
407. The Commission adopted at Step 8 the Draft Standard for Liquid Pulpy Mango Products.
408. The Commission agreed to a request by the Group of Experts to discontinue work on the Proposed Draft Standard for Mango Juice, a product which was not produced in commercially significant amounts.
409. The Commission noted that the Group of Experts was developing the above Standard with a view to providing for those nectars which were not covered by individual Codex Standards. It decided to refer the written comments by the delegations of France and Thailand to the next Session of the Group of Experts.
Status of the Standard
410. The Commission adopted at Step 5 the Draft General Standard for Fruit Nectars.
411. The Commission was informed that a summary of amendments consequential to the introduction of a maximum limit for total soluble solids content and of the use of lime juice in the Standard for Guava Nectar, was contained in para 50 of ALINORM 85/21. The Commission adopted at Step 8 these amendments as consequential amendments. The Commission noted further comments from the delegation of India concerning the use of sugar syrup in fruit juices and referred it to the Group of Experts.
412. The Commission approved the initiation of the amendment procedure to delete the provisions for HMF and related methodology from the above standard and agreed that the amendment be considered to be at Step 3.
413. The Commission noted that the proposals for the amendment of certain Codex standards for fruit juices and fruit nectars had been submitted by IFFJP as LIM 10 and referred this document to the next Session of the Group of Experts for Consideration.
414. The Chairman of the Group of Experts recalled that the 15th Session of the Commission had decided not to continue with the elaboration of a proposed standard for fruit-based drinks. He also recalled that due to the timing of session the Group of Experts had considered the proposal submitted by IFFJP only after the 15th Session of the Commission. The Group of Experts at its 16th Session had agreed to request the Commission to reconsider the Group's Terms of Reference and the elaboration of a standard for Fruit-based Drinks with a high content of fruit ingredient. The delegations of Belgium, Canada, United Kingdom and the United States had reiterated their opposition to the elaboration of such a standard as contained in paras 173 and 174 of ALINORM 85/14.
415. The Chairman of the Group of Experts provided comprehensive data which underlined the growing importance of these products and the need to inform the consumer adequately. He stated that no request was being made to amend the terms of reference of the Group of Experts but that the Commission was requested to approve the elaboration of this specific standard only.
416. The delegation of Canada reiterated its opposition to developing a standard for soft drinks expressed at the 15th Session of the Commission and pointed out that para 52 of ALINORM 85/21 did not fully reflect the discussion which took place at the 15th Session of the Commission.
417. The delegation of Belgium also reiterated its views on this matter expressed at the 15th Session of the Commission as well as at the 16th Session of the Group of Experts. The delegation of the United Stated expressed the view that the terms of reference of the Group of Experts did not enable the Group of Experts to develop a standard for fruit based drinks with a high fruit ingredient content and informed the Commission that the Committee on Food Additives would revise the list of Food Additives in the light of JECFA decisions and publish the revised list in the Codex Alimentarius. The delegations of Ireland and the United Kingdom supported the views expressed by the United States and the delegation of Australia pointed to the technological difficulties in establishing such a standard.
418. The delegations of France, India, Switzerland, Iraq, Austria and Ghana supported the elaboration of a standard for fruit-based drinks with a high fruit ingredient content. The Chairman of the Group of Experts stated that it was not the intention of the Group to develop standards for soft drinks as such, but only for those fruit-based drinks which had a fruit ingredient content of more than 10% m/m.
419. The Commission recognized that views were about equally divided in the Commission. It also recognized that a decision of the Commission could be based only on full information on all aspects of the subject matter, having regard to the Commission's work priority criteria.
420. The Commission agreed that a paper should be prepared on the above and all other pertinent criteria and sent to governments for comments. It agreed also that the paper as well as the comments be submitted to the next Session of the Commission. The Secretariat was instructed to investigate the possibility of engaging a consultant for the preparation of the working paper.
421. Some delegations felt that the paper should first be discussed by the Group of Experts. However, the Commission decided that it should be submitted directly to the Commission as a policy-making body.
422. The Commission was informed that the next session of the Group of Experts would consider the need for and feasibility of a General Standard for Vegetable Juices in the light of a working paper.
423. The Commission had before it the Report of the 16th Session of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (ALINORM 85/18). It noted with great regret that because of illness the Chairman of the Committee, Dr. Olaf Braekkan, was unable to attend the session. The report was introduced by Mr. Harald Pedersen of the Norwegian delegation.
425. The Commission was informed that the question of whether the class name “water binding agents” should be included instead of “phosphates” in the existing list of class names had been discussed by both the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Food Labelling. The latter Committee had agreed that the term should not be included at the present time and that because of the multifunctional uses of phosphates, the matter should be further considered by the Committee.
426. The Committee had forwarded proposals for sampling plans for Fish Blocks to the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling. That Committee had made recommendations which would be further considered at the next session of the Committee.
427. The Committee had noted that at its 31st Session the Executive Committee had examined the possibility of incorporating the above methodology into Codes of Practice/ Hygienic Practice and had agreed that review and possible revision of some Codes might be required. The matter had also been considered by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene which had recommended that individual Commodity Committees should consider the codes which came within their programmes. The Rapporteur pointed out that the nine Codes so far developed by the Committee were combined Codes containing both technological and hygienic provisions of which the latter had been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene. Incorporation of the HACCP approach might pose special problems and the matter would be reviewed at the next session of the Committee for further consideration by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene.
428. The Rapporteur noted that the above had now been adoped by the Commission (see para. 194) and that the Standards elaborated by the Committee would require revision to bring them into line with the provisions of the Guidelines.
429. The Rapporteur informed the Commission that other items for consideration at the next Session of the Committee included:
An objective method of determining the final quality of salted herring;
Feasibility of developing a Standard for Frozen Squid and other Cephalopods;
Review of Methods of Analysis and Sampling in Fish and Fishery Products.
430. The Commission noted that the Standard had been revised over the last five sessions of the Committee and defects tables had been added.
431. The defects table had been tested extensively and the Committee was satisfied that it was workable. No Step 8 comments had been received.
432. The Commission was informed that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (ALINORM 85/22A) had referred the question of date-marking back to the Committee since there had been some expression of opinion that some form of date-marking might be required.
433. The Commission noted that the Standard would be reviewed in the light of the Guidelines on Labelling provisions in Codex Standards and that the Committee could reconsider the matter at that time.
Status of the Revised Codex Standard for Canned Pacific Salmon
434. Subject to the reconsideration of date-marking mentioned above, the Commission adopted the Codex Standard at Step 8 of the procedure.
435. The Commission noted that the Committee had made considerable amendments and added a defects table to the above standard. The Committee had agreed to incorporate the defects table so that Governments could test it and report results to its next Session. Adoption at Step 5 was recommended.
Status of the Draft Standard
436. The Commission agreed to advance the Draft Standard for Dried Salted Fish (Klippfish) of the Gadidae Fish Family to Step 6 of the Procedure.
437. The Commission was informed that the original defects table had been worked out by a Working Group at the 15th Session of the Committee and continued by the same Working Group which met in Bremerhaven before the 16th Session. The Committee had made further changes and decided that it was in a suitable state for testing by Governments and should be adopted at Step 5.
438. The Commission agreed with the point of view of the Committe and advanced the proposed Recommended Defects Tables to Step 6 of the Procedure.
439. The Commission noted that the Code had been reviewed and revised by a Working Group of the Committee at its 16th Session. The Committee had accepted the revised text and advanced it to Step 8.
Status of the Draft Code of Practice for Frozen Battered and/or Breaded Fishery Products
440. The Commission noted that no comments had been received on the Code and adopted it at Step 8 of the Procedure.
Other Matters
441. The Commission was informed that the Committee had examined a background paper on the above prepared by Australia and in view of the substantial trade in such products had decided to ask the Commission for approval to commence work on the elaboration of a standard.
442. The Commission noted the discussions recorded in ALINORM 85/18 paras 279–282 and agreed that work on such a standard should be undertaken by the Committee.
443. The Commission was informed that the delegation of Portugal, supported by the delegations of Spain, France and Switzerland had proposed that only products obtained from Sardina pilchardus should be classified as canned sardines and products obtained from other species of fish included in the standard should be classified as sardinetype products.
444. The Commission noted that the matter had been thoroughly discussed at the 16th Session of the Committee (ALINORM 85/18 paras 283–286). It had been considered that the labelling provision of the Standard gave adequate protection to the consumer and the Committee had agreed not to take any further action on the matter.
445. The Commission agreed with the Committee's decision.
Confirmation of Chairman
446. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Norway.
447. The Commission had before it the Report of the 14th Session of the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses (ALINORM 85/26), which was introduced by the Chairman, Dr. H. Drews (Federal Republic of Germany) who outlined the work in progress.
448. Dr. Drews recalled that the Commission had extended the terms of reference of the Committee to cover nutritional aspects in Codex work, which had resulted in an increased participation at the 14th Session of the Committee. He also informed the Commission that the Committee did not recommend a change in the name of the Committee at the present time. The Chairman of the Committee further informed the Commission that work was in progress on a Standard for the Labelling of and Claims for Low Energy and Energy-reduced Foods, on Guidelines for the Composition and Labelling of and Claims for Meat Replacers for Weight Reduction and on Guidelines on Medical Foods. The Commission noted that the Committee was elaborating guidelines on Supplementary Foods for Use for Infants and Children with an emphasis on locally available raw materials. Governments and Regional Coordinating Committees had been requested to submit information on raw material as well as on the definition of these products (Step 3).
449. The Chairman of the Committee informed the Commission that the Committee had decided to suspend work at the present time on the proposed Draft Standard for the Labelling of and Claims for Prepackaged Foods Claimed to be Suitable for Incorporation into a Prescribed Dietary Regimen for Diabetes, in view of new scientific developments in diabetes research. However, governments were being requested to submit information on their national requirements concerning specific food for diabetics.
450. The Commission recalled that it had not adopted the above standard at its 15th Session and had referred the standard back to the CCFSDU with a request to align it with the Revised General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. The Commission noted that this had been done and that the revised text of the above standard had also been endorsed by the Committee on Food Labelling.
Status of the Standard
451. The Commission adopted at Step 8 the Draft Standard for the Labelling of and Claims for Prepackaged Foods for Special Dietary Uses.
452. The Commission was informed that a number of amendments to the Codex Standard for Foods for Infants and Children had been considered by the 14th Session of the CCFSDU; they were summarized in Appendix IX, Sections A to D. The Chairman of the Committee stated that the Committee had advanced these amendments to Step 5 and had recommended their adoption at Steps 5 and 8 with omission of Step 6 and 7. He pointed out that the maximum values for vitamin D in Section D should read 100 I.V. International Units per 100 Assimilable Calories and 25 I.V. International Units per 100 Assimilable Kilojoules respectively as agreed to by the Committee.
453. Concerning Amendment A - Leavening Agents - the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany expressed the view that maximum levels should be established for these ammonium compounds, since the residues received in the foods were not appropriate in a food for infants and children. This was supported by the delegate of Austria. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany also did not agree to the use of guar gum (Section C). The delegations of India and Australia felt that more comments were needed and that the amendments should be considered further. The delegation of India also proposed that the content of Vitamin D be expressed per 100 grammes or 100 ml of the food.
454. The delegation of the United Kingdom informed the Commission that JECFA had evaluated the leavening agents in Section A above, especially for their use in foods for infants and children and that the amendment had been fully considered by the CCFSDU and endorsed by the CCFA. The delegation therefore proposed adoption of the amendments at Steps 5 and 8.
Status of the Amendments
455. The Commission adopted at Steps 5 and 8 the amendments contained in section B of Appendix IX and adopted at Step 5 the amendments contained in Sections A, C and D. The delegation of Thailand stated that it could not take any action on the amendments, since it had not been in a position to accept the Codex Standards for Foods for Infants and Children.
456. The Commission was informed that full consideration had been given to the above standard, especially to its sections on scope and definitions. The Committee had decided that the products covered by the standard were appropriate for infants from 4 to 6 months onwards if given together with other complementary foods which provided part of the essential nutrients. The Chairman of the Committee pointed out that all fundamental issues concerning the Standard had been discussed and that a number of technical points had still to be finalized. He recommended therefore that the standard be adopted at step 5.
457. The delegation of India stated that the minimum age limit in the standard should be 6 months; this coincided with the Indian national recommendations.
458. The delegation of Thailand stated that the products covered by this standard were not of economic benefit to Thailand and informed the Commission of the three standards for foods for infants and children in force in Thailand. The delegation stated that it did not oppose adoption of the standard.
459. The Commission agreed that the technical comments made by the delegations of Italy and Austria should be submitted in writing to the Committee.
460. The delegation of Norway enquired whether the proposed Draft was fully compatible with the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes. Several delegations took the view that the follow-up food dealt with in Appendix IV was clearly in the nature of complementary food and could not be regarded as breast-milk substitute; in this connection, specific reference was made to section 9.9.2 which requires labelling to the effect that “Follow-up Food should be introduced only from 4 to 6 months on”. The delegation of the Netherlands raised the question whether a provision might be included in the Proposed Draft, stating that the products covered are not intended as breastmilk substitutes.
461. The consultant who had prepared a report for the Committee on the question of compatibility of Codex standards with the WHO International Code, pointed out that the desirability of safeguarding the application of the WHO Code had already been examined by the Committee in Connection with the standards concerning Infant Formula, Canned Baby Foods and Cereal-based Foods. While the Committee had proposed an amendment to the first of these standards, which was now before the Commission, no conclusion had been reached on the question whether similar amendments containing a cross-reference to the WHO Code should be introduced in the other two standards. Since the Committee intended to resume consideration of this matter at a future session, this might provide an opportunity for the Committee to examine the same question also with respect to the Proposed Draft Standard on Follow-up Food for Older Infants and Young Children.
462. The representative of the WHO Legal Counsel pointed out that the scope of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes is contained in Article 2 of the Code. According to that provision “the Code applies to the marketing and practices related thereto, of … breast-milk substitutes, including infant formula, other milk products, foods and beverages, including bottle-fed complementary foods, when marketed or otherwise represented to be suitable … for use as a partial or total replacement of breast-milk …”.
463. Therefore, any of those products, irrespective of name, would be caught by Article 2 when it is being marketed or represented to be suitable as a replacement of breast-milk. He also pointed out that the International Code does not contain any age limit as to when Article 2 might not apply to such products.
464. Referring to Annex III, pages 35 and 36 of the International Code, the delegation of Switzerland was of the opinion that all fundamental matters had been thoroughly discussed by the Committee and should therefore not be reopened. This view was supported by the delegations of France and Kenya.
Status of the Standard
465. The Commission adopted at Step 5 the Proposed Draft Standard for Follow-up Foods for Older Infants and Young Children. The delegation of Norway stated its opposition to this decision and expressed the view that there was no real need for the products covered by the standard. New Zealand did not support elaboration or adoption at Step 5, as it believed that the most appropriate foods for the purpose were those of the country involved.
466. The Commission agreed that agenda items 30 (b) third indent and 30 (d) should be considered together.
467. The Chairman of the Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses referred to the review paper mentioned in para 126 of the Committee's Report, in which the question of compatibility between the relevant Codex Standards and the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes had been examined in depth. He pointed out that the Committee had agreed with the conclusion of the review paper that there was no inconsistency between the WHO Code and the relevant provisions of the abovementioned Codex Standards, and that it was, therefore, not indispensable, from a legal point of view, to amend these standards. After examining the question whether it would nevertheless be desirable to establish a link between the WHO Code and the Codex Standards by way of adding a suitable cross reference in the labelling provision of these Standards, the Committee had approved by consensus the following addition to section 10.10 of the Standard on Infant Formula, for consideration by the Commission:
“In this case, the provisions of Article 9 of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes of the World Health Organization should be duly taken into account.”
468. There had been considerable opposition, however, to the introduction of a corresponding amendment to the Standards for Canned Baby Foods and Cereal-Based Foods, and the Committee had therefore decided to consider the matter further at a subsequent session, taking into account, as appropriate, any guidance that may be provided by the Commission. During the Commission's deliberations, all delegates who took the floor supported the amendment prepared by the Committee with respect to the Infant Formula Standard. The Commission decided to adopt the amendment at Steps 5 and 8.
469. On the other hand, several delegates were opposed to the introduction of similar amendments (as worded in para 127 (b) of the Committee's report) to the Standards on Canned Baby Foods and Cereal-based Foods; they considered that these foods were clearly intended as complementary foods, not as breast-milk substitutes. A few delegates felt that, in view of certain marketing practices, the desirability of giving favourable consideration to appropriate amendments should be examined further by the Committee.
470. The Commission adopted at Step 5 the above Guidelines.
471. The Commission was informed that the Committee had considered a document on the addition of nutrients to foods. The Committee had recommended the Commission to approve that the text be developed in the format of general principles. The Commission was also informed that the Committee had agreed to a further round of comments prior to finalization of the text which would in turn be submitted to the next Session of the Commission. The Commission agreed with the action proposed by the CCFSDU and expressed its appreciation that the CCFSDU was dealing with this very important subject.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
472. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses should continue under the Chairmanship of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
474. The Commission had before it a Conference Room Document (LIM 1), prepared by the IAEA indicating that the prohibition of irradiation treatment included in certain Codex standards and the general clearance of the process of irradiation through the Codex General Standard for Irradiated Foods represented an inconsistency.
475. The Observer from the IAEA informed the Commission that this question had been raised at the 16th Session of the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses, but that time did not permit a discussion of the matter.
476. The Observer from IAEA pointed out that the present Codex General Standard for Irradiated Foods recognized that the process of food irradiation had been established as safe for general application to food up to an absorbed dose level of 10 kGy. In his opinion, it was not the intention of the Codex General Standard to imply a need for clearance of the process on a food by food basis, or to restrict authorization of the process in any other way. A number of Codex standards (e.g. fruit juices and foods for infants and children) prohibited the application of irradiation either to the finished product, or to components used in the preparation of the food. Although the use of the irradiation process might not be relevant for the treatment of food products such as fruit juices or canned foods for children, it was possible that components might have been treated by irradiation (e.g. cereals for insect disinfestation purposes and the elimination of pathogens in spices or dried ingredients).
477. The Observer from IAEA, therefore, indicated that it would be highly appreciated if the Commission would bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate Codex Committees and the Joint UNECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on Standardization of Fruit Juices.
478. During the discussion of the proposal of the IAEA, the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany and Spain were of the opinion that nothing would be gained by referring the matter to the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses, since the general clearance referred to the average adult and that there was no technological need for the irradiation of foods for infants and children. Other delegations supported the proposal of the IAEA that the matter be further discussed by the appropriate Codex Committees. The delegation of the United Kingdom was of the opinion that, as the issue raised by IAEA was a general one, it should be considered by the Codex Committee on Food Additives.
479. The Commission agreed that the question raised by IAEA be referred to the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses.
480. The Commission had before it the Report of the 13th Session of the Codex Committee on Processed Meat and Poultry Products as contained in ALINORM 85/16. The Report was introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Mrs. A. Brincker, who gave an account of the work accomplished by the Committee since the last Session of the Commission.
481. The Commission had before it the above Code of Hygienic Practice as contained in Appendix II of ALINORM 85/16 and Step 8 comments, as put forward by Ireland and Thailand and contained in documents ALINORM 85/43 - Part VI, LIM 11 and LIM 22.
482. The delegation of USA informed the Commission of its concern about the Code regarding (i) definition of meat which was more appropriate to meat at the time of slaughter and did not cover meat which was processed; (ii) water temperature specifications, and (iii) mid-shift clean up requirements. It suggested that the Committee might review the above aspects and amend certain clauses of the Code, if considered necessary.
483. The Observer from the EEC stated that the EEC Member Countries agreed that the Code should be adopted at Step 8, but pointed out that EEC laws differed in certain aspects from the Code and that import of meat products into the Community would have to comply with more stringent requirements. The various points of divergence were explained in the Reports of the various CCPMPP sessions.
484. The Commission noted that the above Code, including Annexes A and B, which was a revision of an earlier version, presented as CAC/RCP 13-1976, took into account the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point System (HACCP).
Status of the Code
485. It was pointed out that the CCFH had expressed the opinion that the Code should be submitted for endorsement to that Committee. Doubts were raised as to whether the CCFH had wanted to review Annex C only or the entire Code. The Commission reconfirmed its earlier decision that Codes of practice elaborated by the CCMH and the CCPMPP would not have to be endorsed by the CCFH.
486. Noting that Thailand in its comments agreed to Annex A and that the comments raised by Ireland on Annexes A and B were adequately covered in the body of the Code, the Commission adopted the Code with Annexes A and B at Step 8 of the Codex Procedure.
487. The delegation of Argentina expressed a reservation regarding the definition of meat which in its view was too wide and would allow certain by-products of meat to be considered as meat.
488. The Commission had before it the above Annex C as contained in Appendix II of ALINORM 85/16 and Step 8 comments of Ireland and Thailand as contained in documents ALINORM 85/43 - Part VI and LIM 11.
489. The Commission noted that Annex C to the Code was being considered separately, since it was not a part of the former Code (CAC/RCP 13-1976). It also noted that it had been considered twice by the CCFH.
490. The delegation of the USA made a suggestion that Annex C be reviewed by the Committee at its next session in the light of a recently published book entitled “An Evaluation of the Role of Microbiological Criteria for Food Ingredients” published by the National Academy of Sciences, USA, and that the Code be amended, if considered necessary.
491. The Commission decided that it would not be necessary to return Annex C once more for consideration by the CCFH, since it had been revised in accordance with the proposals of that Committee and since no substantial Step 8 comments had been submitted.
Status of Annex C
492. The Commission adopted Annex C to the Code at Step 8 of the Codex Procedure with the editorial change in Section B2(e) as suggested by Ireland in document ALINORM 85/43-Part VI.
493. The delegation of Thailand informed the Commission that it would prefer to have an incubation temperature of 37° instead of 30° as required by the ISO Standard (IS 2293), cited in Section III - Procedure B Non-Shelf Stable Meat Products, heat treated after packaging - Techniques (2d).
494. The Commission had before it the above Guidelines as contained in Appendix IV of ALINORM 85/16.
495. Some delegations were opposed to the elaboration of the Guidelines for the use of VPP and MPP in Processed Meat and Poultry Products since, in their view, products where meat is replaced by VPP cannot be considered as meat products.
496. Noting that it had already authorised the elaboration of the Guidelines for the use of VPP and MPP in Processed Meat and Poultry Products (ALINORM 83/43, paras 388–391) and noting that commercial practices in this regard were established and were under further development, the Commission adopted the Guidelines at Step 5 of the Codex Procedure and advanced them to Step 6. The Commission expressed the wish that the development of these Guidelines should take place in close cooperation with the Codex Committee on Vegetable Proteins and that these should be consistent and go parallel with the General Guidelines developed by that Committee.
497. The Commission noted that the outstanding question in the Guidelines, which is the problem about the naming of the product in which meat has been partially substituted by VPP or MPP, had been discussed under Agenda Item 18.
498. The Commission had before it ALINORM 85/21 - Part 1 containing other matters of interest to the Commission arising from the Report of the 13th Session of the Committee.
499. The Commission agreed with the Committee that the Carry over Principle applied to all standards so far elaborated by it, Luncheon Meat (CODEX STAN 89-1981), Cooked Cured Chopped Meat (CODEX STAN 98-1981), Cooked Cured Ham (CODEX STAN 96-1981), Cooked Cured Pork Shoulder (CODEX STAN 97-1981) and Canned Corned Beef (CODEX STAN 88-1981).
500. The Commission noted the following future work of the Committee:
Consideration at Step 6 of the Guidelines for Use of VPP and MPP in Processed Meat and Poultry Products
Revision of existing Codex standards for Processed Meat and Poultry Products
Consideration at Step 4 of Guidelines on the Preservation of Shelf Stable Cured Meat Products in Consumer Size Hermetically Sealed Containers as Annex D to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Processed Meat and Poultry Products, and
Establishment of Provisions for Contaminants (tin and lead) in standards for Processed Meat and Poultry Products on the basis of a survey to be carried out on the same lines as the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables.
501. The Commission noted that the Committee had considered to undertake work on this subject, if in the view of the Commission, it was an appropriate task to be undertaken by the Committee.
502. The Commission had before it a background document LIM 14 on the subject prepared by the Chairman of the CCPMPP. The Commission noted that since the Executive Committee at its 32nd Session could not discuss document LIM 14 because of lack of time, the views of the Executive Committee on the subject were not available.
503. Introducing document LIM 14, Mrs. Anne Brincker informed the Commission that the title of the Guidelines would perhaps convey better the intent of the Guidelines to the user if it were changed to read “Guidelines for Processing of Meat Products to Prevent Transmission of Animal Diseases”. She informed the Commission that national requirements for the processing of meat from healthy animals originating from a country or area where an animal disease exists differ considerably and that this creates nontariff trade barriers which are of significant economic importance. She informed the Commission that the elaboration of Guidelines, which included animal health aspects, seemed to be within the scope of the Codex Alimentarius, since provisions to such effect were included in the Draft International Code of Practice for Ante-Mortem and Post-Mortem Judgement of Slaughter Animals and Meat (ALINORM 85/32) elaborated by the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene. The Commission was also informed that the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) was engaged in work in this field.
504. Many delegations expressed the need for the development of the Guidelines, but felt, however, that it might not be an appropriate task for Codex to undertake. The Commission agreed that such a task should rather be undertaken by FAO and recommended that FAO convene a meeting of experts to consider this subject for appropriate action. It was also proposed that OIE and other bodies that might have an interest in the matter should be invited. The Commission noted that if work was undertaken, the Codex Committee on Processed Meat and Poultry Products might be able to assist with regard to processing technology.
505. The delegation of the USA informed the Commission that they had many years of experience in this field in their country and that they would be pleased to cooperate in any work which might be undertaken. The observer from the EEC also offered their cooperation.
506. The Codex Secretariat informed the Commission that the recommendation as above would be forwarded to the appropriate Division within FAO for consideration.
Confirmation of the Chairmanship of the Committee
507. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Processed Meat and Poultry Products would continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Denmark.
508. The Commission had before it the Report of the 4th Session of the Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes (ALINORM 85/29) and matters requiring specific action in ALINORM 85/21. Proposals for amendments and comments at Step 8 were contained in ALINORM 85/43 Part II and Add. 1 and LIM 23. The Report was introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. D.R. Galliart (United States of America).
509. The Chairman of the Committee recalled that the 15th Session of the Commission had returned the above Standard to Step 6, since it had felt that numerous sections had not yet been completely finalized. He indicated that considerable improvements had been made to the standard and informed the Commission that the Committee had, therefore, advanced the Standard to Step 8. Referring to the written proposals for amendments, he informed the Commission that these proposals had been extensively discussed within the Committee.
510. The Chairman of the Committee recommended adoption of the standard recognizing that the section on food additives still remained to be endorsed, due to the timing of sessions of the Codex Committee on Food Additives.
511. The delegations of Austria and Iraq stated that they were not in favour of the general form of the provisions on contaminants. The delegation of Iraq was of the opinion that, since bread was a staple food in many countries, intake studies should be carried out in those countries and maximum levels for contaminants established.
512. The Chairman of the Committee informed the Commission that a questionnaire for a survey of contaminants in cereals and cereal products had recently been sent to governments and that the delegation of Switzerland had kindly agreed to evaluate the replies and to present a paper to the next Session of the Committee.
513. The delegation of Argentina stressed that it could not agree with the hygiene provisions in 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 which, it thought, were very ambiguously worded and should, therefore, be deleted; in fact as a general matter, they should be deleted from all standards. The Secretariat indicated that an editorial amendment would be made to those provisions in the standards developed by this Committee, to clarify the meaning of the provisions.
514. Several French speaking delegations pointed out that the term “blé” as such should be used in the scope section of the standard; this was in accordance with the footnote to para 37 of ALINORM 85/29.
515. The delegation of France stated that it was opposed to the use of bleaching agents which had now been classified as processing aids. It was of the opinion that bleaching agents would deceive the consumer with regard to the quality of the flour and might represent a health hazard. Furthermore, the use of these substances was not necessary in properly prepared flour from sound raw material. The delegation of France expressed its reservations on all flour improvers except ascorbic acid.
516. The delegation of Greece supported France with regard to many food additives. The delegation of Greece requested, however, that the use of tartaric and citric acid be permitted in the Standard. The points made by France were also supported by Switzerland, Togo and Portugal.
517. The delegations of Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany wished to limit the number of food additives permitted in the Standard. The delegation of India favoured the retention of flour improvers mentioned in the Standard. However regarding benzoyl benzoate, as this is permitted under Indian regulations for wheat flour, it could also be included in the Codex standard.
518. The delegation of the United Kingdom felt that the standard as presently drafted represented the best compromise solution which could be achieved. The delegation was of the opinion that there was a need in future to reconsider the method of analysis and the related value for fat acidity, since the present method required the use of benzene and was therefore not suitable. A new ISO method was being developed.
519. The observer of the EEC stated that the question of methods of analysis had not been examined in sufficient depth and that consequently the question should be reviewed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.
520. The Commission noted that none of the delegations that had spoken had opposed adoption of the Standard at Step 8 and concluded that the need for and importance of an international Codex Standard for Wheat Flour, one of the major staple foods, was such as to outweigh any possible improvements to the Standard that might be gained from further consideration of some aspects of the Standard by the Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes, which would mean a delay of a further two years at least in adopting the Standard, the elaboration of which had been proposed, in the first instance, by developing countries.
Status of the Standard
521. The Commission adopted at Step 8 the Draft Standard for Wheat Flour recognizing that most of the food additive provisions had still to be endorsed. Following established practice, any additives not endorsed by the CCFA would be deleted from the Standard before issue to governments.
522. The Chairman of the Committee reminded the Commission that the draft standard for maize (corn) grains had been referred to the Committee from the Coordinating Committee for Africa. The Commission also recalled that the 15th Session had returned the standard to Step 6 for further work mainly on methods of analysis and sampling. The Commission was informed that specific working groups had revised the Standard in such a way that they now felt that the Standard was ready for adoption at Step 8.
523. The delegation of Brazil expressed its reservation on a moisture content of 15.5% m/m and stated that in countries with a tropical or subtropical climate the maximum moisture content should be 13.5% to prevent deterioriation of the grains. The opinion of Brazil was supported by the delegations of Ghana, Mexico and Ivory Coast.
524. The Chairman of the Committee informed the Commission that this matter had been discussed at great length in the Committee and proposed not to change the figure, recognizing that this was a minimum standard.
525. The delegation of Thailand was not opposed to the adoption of the draft standard, provided its proposals for amendment of sections 2.2.1.2, 3.4.1, 3.4.1.1 were accepted.
Status of the Standard
526. The Commission adopted at Step 8 the Draft Standard for Maize (Corn) Grains.
527. The Commission noted the reservation of the delegation of Brazil on a maximum moisture content of 15% m/m which was considered too high in view of the high fat content of maize; it was proposed that under tropical and subtropical conditions the moisture content should not exceed 13.5% m/m. The Commission noted that Thailand had proposed to amend the value for protein content.
Status of the Standard
528. The Commission adopted at Step 8 the Draft Standard for Whole Maize (Corn) Meal.
529. The delegation of Brazil, supported by the delegations of Cuba and Greece, stated that it could not agree with the moisture content of 15% m/m for reasons given in the previous standards. The Secretariat was instructed to correct the wording of section 4.4.1 in the Spanish version of the Standard.
Status of the Standard
530. The Commission adopted at Step 8 the Draft Standard for Degermed Maize (Corn) Meal and Maize (Corn) Grits.
531. The Commission was informed that a minimum standard was being elaborated. The Commission noted that only two provisions remained in square brackets and that the ISO/ ICC/AOAC Working Group on Methods of Analysis and Sampling for Cereals had agreed also to consider appropriate methods for inclusion in this Standard.
532. The Commission agreed that any technical comments should be submitted to the CCPL for discussion at the next Session of that Committee.
Status of the Standard
533. The Commission adopted, at Step 5, the Draft Standard for Certain Pulses.
Other Matters Arising from the Report
534. The Chairman of the Committee informed the Commission that the programme of work of the Committee included the following items:
Milled rice: the ISO standard on milled rice will be reviewed when finalized with a view to determining whether a Codex standard is needed for this commodity.
Sorghum grains and sorghum flour: as decided under Item 24, the Committee will elaborate world-wide standards for these products.
Durum Wheat Flour and Semolina: a background paper and a first draft standard for these products will be discussed by the next session of the Committee.
Contaminants: survey carried out by the delegation of Switzerland.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
535. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the United States of America.
536. The Commission had before it the Report of the Third Session of the Codex Committee on Vegetable Proteins which was introduced by the Chairman, Dr. N.W. Tape (Canada) who reviewed the work in progress.
537. The Commission noted that the General Standard was nearly complete and that there were no square brackets in the draft. The only areas remaining to be elaborated were one or two methods of analysis, the contaminant levels and Section 4 on “Food Additives”. Action had been taken to facilitate completion of these sections at the Committee's next session - i.e., a Working Group to draft the section on food additives and a circular letter to member countries to obtain information.
538. The delegation of Japan was of the opinion that the General Standard should be developed for VPP not covered by individual standards, as was the case with the standards for fats and oils. The Commission noted that in the case of VPPs individual standards varied only for specific characteristics and otherwise followed the provisions of the General Standard.
Status of the Draft International General Standard for Vegetable Protein Products
539. The Commission adopted the General Standard at Step 5 of the Procedure.
540. The Commission noted that, as in the General Standard, the Soy Protein Product Standard had only a few areas to be completed. These related to the protein nutritive value, the elaboration of the section on food additives, the identification of a few methods of analysis and the level of some contaminants. Adoption, at Step 5, of the Draft International Standard for Soy Protein Products had been recommended.
Status of the Draft International Standard for Soy Protein Products
541. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard at Step 5 of the Procedure.
542. The Commission was informed that this standard was also nearly complete. The only substantive matter to be resolved was the minimum protein content of wheat gluten. The present text had 80% in square brackets. In view of discussions since the last session, the Committee Chairman was of the opinion that agreement would be reached on this point at the next meeting of the Committee.
543. Adoption at Step 5 of the Draft International Standard for Wheat Gluten had, therefore, been recommended.
544. The delegation of France pointed out that there were relatively few ISO standards referenced in the above documents and undertook to send detailed information on this point for consideration by the Committee.
Status of the Draft International Standard for Wheat Gluten
545. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard at Step 5 of the Procedure.
546. The Committee had prepared an 8-part General Guideline for the Utilization of Vegetable Protein Products in Foods, and an Annex relating to testing the safety and nutritional quality of vegetable protein products. Elaboration of both the guidelines and the annex was nearly complete.
547. The only substantive matter to be resolved was the Guideline on the labelling of an animal food product in which part or all of the animal protein had been substituted by a vegetable protein product. This subject had received full discussion earlier in the Commission's session (see paras 175–185) and, therefore, did not need to be re-discussed at this juncture. Dr. Tape informed the Commission that, with the objective of moving towards resolution of this issue, he had invited the United Kingdom and the USA to prepare a revised text for sections 7.5 and 7.6 of the Guidelines for consideration at the next session of the CCVP. Both delegations had accepted the invitation to draft a joint text. As a result Dr. Tape was hopeful that the Committee would resolve this difficult issue at its next meeting.
548. Since this labelling issue was the only portion of the General Guidelines to be completed, and since considerable opportunity remained for government and observer comment, the Committee recommended adoption at Step 5 of the Draft General Guidelines for the Utilization of Vegetable Protein Products in Foods.
Status of the Draft General Guidelines for the Utilization of Vegetable Protein Products in Food
549. The Commission adopted the Draft Guidelines at Step 5 of the Procedure.
550. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany reiterated its previous position that it was against the use of vegetable proteins and milk proteins to substitute meat proteins and also against the use of vegetable proteins in milk products and for this reason opposed adoption of the Guidelines at Step 5.
551. The Commission noted that the Committee had received progress reports from working groups on:
Protein quality measurement; and
Quantitative methods for the differentiation of vegetable and animal proteins.
552. The Committee had been reviewing the possibility of alternate methods to the Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) for the measurement of protein quality. The traditional PER method was costly and time-consuming and more rapid methods were therefore being developed. A Working Group was monitoring the new technology. At the last session, the Working Group had concluded that the preferred approach for evaluating protein quality was based on amino acid composition data. In view of research currently underway, it was possible that the Working Group would recommend to the next session of the CCVP, a new method for the measurement of protein quality. If accepted, the new method would then be incorporated into the standards and guidelines.
553. The CCVP had also identified the need for practical methods to differentiate vegetable and animal proteins in a mixture. A Working Group was assessing the adequacy of methods under development. However, at the present time, no single analytical method was adequate for product control purposes. A further report on this matter would be received at the next session of the Committee.
554. At its next session, the Committee would be considering reports from working groups established to review the need for standards for:
Potato Protein products; and
Soy-based beverages.
555. As had been requested by the Commission at its last session, the Committee would review the proposed Draft Guidelines for the Use of Vegetable Protein Products and Milk Protein Products in Processed Meat and Poultry Products developed by the Codex Committee on Processed Meat and Poultry Products.
556. The Committee also agreed to up-date the 1978 report to the Commission describing the current status of vegetable protein production and utilization. In addition, the Committee would proceed with further elaboration of the three standards and the general utilization guidelines.
557. Dr. Tape informed the Commission that the next session of the CCVP, originally scheduled for September 1985, had been postponed until early 1987. This “gestation period” would facilitate further discussion and preparation on outstanding matters, with a view to completing the three standards and the general utilization guidelines at the Fourth Session. If successful, the Committee would have the standards and guidelines ready for consideration at Step 8 in 1987.
558. The Commission noted with satisfaction the progress made by the Committee.
Confirmationship of Chairmanship
559. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX. 10 that the Codex Committee on Vegetable Proteins should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Canada.
560. The Commission had before it ALINORM 85/10 containing relevant extracts from the Report of the 15th Session of the Committee and the above standard (ALINORM 83/10 and Appendix V).
561. The Commission noted that there had been long-standing discussions both within the Committee and the Commission regarding the inclusion of the term “White Chocolate” in the title and description section of the Standard.
562. At its last Session, the Commission had noted that opinions of whether or not to retain the term “White Chocolate” were equally divided (ALINORM 83/43 paras 466–476) and had agreed to hold the draft standard, as it appeared in Annex V, at Step 8 of the Procedure and reconsider the matter further at the present Session.
563. The delegation of Ghana and the delegations of the Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Mexico supported by the Observer of COPAL, reiterated their fundamental opposition to the use of the term “White Chocolate” in the Standard. The above-mentioned group pointed out that the product in question did not conform to the essential composition and quality factors of the Codex Standard for Chocolate.
564. The delegation of Switzerland supported by the delegations of Austria, Belgium and the United Kingdom and the Observer from the EEC were of the opinion that the term should be allowed in countries where its use was traditional and supported the present provisions of the Standard. The delegation of the United Kingdom was, however, agreeable to the Standard being entitled as that for cocoa butter confectionery.
565. After some discussion, the Chairman noted that opinions remained unchanged and appointed a small group consisting of the Chairman of the Committee, two representatives of countries where the use of the term “White Chocolate” was traditional (United Kingdom, Belgium) and two representatives of the producing countries who were opposed to the use of the term (Ghana, Ivory Coast). The Chairman of the Commission was also a member of the Group.
566. Following a meeting of the above-mentioned Group, the Commission was informed by the Chairman that the Group had agreed on the following compromise proposal, which it recommended to the Commission:
Delete “White Chocolate” from the title and 2.1 Description.
Amend 7.1, “Name of the food” to read:
“Products described under Section 2.1 and complying with Section 3.1 of the Standard shall be designated Cocoa Butter Confectionery. In those countries where the name White Chocolate is widely used, the use of this name is permitted”.
567. The Commission agreed to the compromise and congratulated the Group for having reached a solution to the problem.
Status of the Standard for Cocoa Butter Confectionery
568. The Commission adopted the Standard as amended at Step 8 of the Procedure.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
569. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX. 10, that the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Switzerland.
570. The Commission had available ALINORM 85/32 containing the above Code and LIM 12 containing government comments.
571. The subject was introduced by the Head of the New Zealand delegation (Mr. G.H. Boyd) on behalf of the Chairman, Mr. M.L. Cameron. The Commission noted that the Committee had adjourned sine die but that the above Code had not been adopted at Step 8 at the 15th Session of the Commission as had been hoped, chiefly because delegates had made comments on the public health/animal health aspects of the Code. It had, therefore, been advanced to Step 6 and written comments had been invited on the public health/animal health aspects of the Code. The views of governments had been collected and analysed by the FAO as a policy matter to ascertain whether there was justification for re-examining the Code. The “Judgement Code” had, therefore, been circulated at Step 6 with a Circular Letter (CL 1984/4 January 1984) requesting such comments.
572. At its 31st Session, the Executive Committee had noted that most of the comments were of a constructive editorial nature and that there was a substantial body of opinion that the high degree of international consensus already reached could not be bettered.
573. The Executive Committee had decided, therefore, that the best course of action would be to put the Code, editorially revised to take account of constructive editorial points made, before this Session of the Commission, at Step 8. It would, of course, be open to any member country and interested international organizations to make Step 8 comments on the revised text.
574. The present version of the Code had, therefore, been amended as instructed by the Executive Committee. Comments on the amended Code had been received from Poland, Sweden and Mexico.
575. The Commission noted that, in the opinion of the experts in the FAO Animal Production and Health Division, the comments from Poland were not substantive and none of the points raised by Sweden would change the text substantially, since most had been already discussed by the Committee. The FAO Animal Production and Health Division considered that one editorial change which would make an entry into the table of diseases more precise could be added.
576. The experts in the Animal Production and Health Division had been of the opinion that the comments from Mexico contained useful technical nomenclature which could be used to edit the Spanish version of the Code.
577. The Representative of the EEC informed the Commission that there was general agreement within the EEC that the Code should be adopted and pointed out that the present Code would not affect existing national or international provisions relating to non-zoonotic contagious animal epizootic diseases.
Status of the Draft International Code of Practice for Ante-Mortem and Post-Mortem Judgement of Slaughter Animals and Meat
578. The Commission noted that there was general agreement that the Code should be adopted at Step 8 and so decided. It was understood that some editorial amendments would be made before the Code was published.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
579. The Commission confirmed that under Rule IX. 10 the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of New Zealand.
580. The Observer from the IOOC, Mrs. B. Pajuelo introduced ALINORM 85/33, containing a report on two meetings convened by the International Olive Oil Council on the Revision of the Codex Standard for Table Olives (CODEX STAN 66-1981).
581. She informed the Commission that at its 50th and 51st Sessions, the International Olive Oil Council had convened special meetings of the IOOC Committee of Experts on Table Olives. Member Countries of the Codex Alimentarius Commission had been invited to participate for the purpose of revising the above standard, as had been agreed to by the 15th Session of the Commission.
582. Mrs. Pajuelo informed the Commission also that the International Olive Oil Council was offering to convene a similar meeting in connection with its 54th Session planned for May 1986, to give consideration to the revised standard at Step 7.
583. The Chairman of the IOOC Group of Experts Mr. P. Elmanowsky (France) informed the Commission that the above standard had been thoroughly revised to align it with the minimum requirements of the IOOC Standard for Table Olives and that only a few sections (on food additives, contaminants, tolerances for the drained weight and labelling) needed further consideration.
Status of the Standard
584. The Commission adopted at Step 5 the Draft Revised Text of the Codex Standard for Table Olives.
585. The Commission expressed its appreciation to the International Olive Oil Council for providing excellent facilities for the revision of the above standard and accepted the kind offer of the International Olive Oil Council to convene a further meeting to finalize the revision of the Codex Standard for Table Olives.
587. The Commission noted that the question of the review of methods of analysis for sugars was still under consideration and that it was likely to be finalized at the next session of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling. The Observer from ISO, speaking on behalf of ISO TC/93 dealing with starch hydrolysis products, recalled that close cooperation existed between this ISO Technical Committee and the Codex Committee on Sugars as regards the establishment of methods of analysis for the various types of sugars.
588. The Commission also noted that the question of lead levels in sugars was still under consideration and urged governments to send information to the Secretariat as indicated in Circular CL 1985/7 as soon as possible. It expressed its appreciation to the United Kingdom for its contribution to the work of the Commission in the field of sugars.
589. The delegation of the United Kingdom indicated that the question of lead intake, especially by children, was still under review and that the JECFA would consider this matter at its next session. As regards the setting of legal limits for lead in sugars, the Codex Committee on Food Additives would reconsider this matter at its 18th Session in 1985 in the light of further comments from governments.
Confirmationship of Chairmanship of the Committee
590. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX. 10 that the Codex Committee on Sugars should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the United Kingdom.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
591. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX. 10 that the Codex Committee on Soups and Broths should continue to be under the Chairmanship of Switzerland.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
593. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX. 10 that the Codex Committee on General Principles should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of France.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
594. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX. 10 that the Codex Committee on Edible Ices should continue under the Chairmanship of the Government of Sweden. It noted that the Committee would remain adjourned sine die.
595. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX. 10 that the Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters should continue under the Chairmanship of the Government of Switzerland. It noted that the Committee would remain adjourned sine die.
598. The Commission agreed that the amendment procedure could be initiated and that the secretariats of IOOC and Codex together should prepare a draft of the amendments for consideration by the next session of the IOOC, to be held in November 1985. It was also agreed that subsequently the proposed amendment should be sent to governments for comments at Step 3 and that the 13th Session of the CCFO should consider them at its next session.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
601. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the United Kingdom.
