1. The Sixth Session of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables was held in Mexico City, Mexico, from 29 January - 2 February 1996 at the kind invitation of the Government of Mexico. The Session was chaired by Lic. Maria Eugenia Bracho Gonzalez, Director General of Standards, Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Promotion. It was attended by 67 delegates and advisers from 22 Member countries and 6 observers from 4 international organizations. The list of participants is attached to this report as Appendix I.
OPENING OF THE SESSION (Agenda Item 1)
2. Opening remarks on behalf of the Mexican government were presented by Dr. Raul Ramos Tercero, Sub-Secretary of Normative Activities and Services for Foreign Industry and Commerce (SECOFI) and Ing. Alejandro Trueba Carranza, Director General of Agriculture Policy (SAGAR). Mr. David H. Byron, Food Standards Officer of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, presented remarks on behalf of the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA1 (Agenda Item 2)
3. The Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda as proposed.
COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE2 (Agenda Item 3)
4. The 21st Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission3 adopted a revision to the terms of reference of the Codex Committee on Tropical Fresh Fruits and Vegetables to cover the standardization of all fresh fruits and vegetables by deleting the term “tropical” throughout. The Commission stressed that that the newly named Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables should continue to cooperate and coordinate with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) towards the elaboration of harmonized standards without duplication of effort, and noted that the present decision should allow the Codex Alimentarius Commission to use UNECE standards and recommend them for worldwide application.
5. In response to the Commission decision, the Codex and UNECE Secretariats prepared a list of UNECE Standards for fresh fruits and vegetables (CX/FFV 96/2) to solicit proposals for additions to the priority list of fresh fruits and vegetables requiring standardization by Codex for worldwide application. The Representative of the UNECE also noted that the list should include UNECE Standards for Broccoli (FFV-47) and Custard Apple (FFV-48) for completeness.
2 CX/FFV 96/2 and comments from Spain, Sweden, Poland and the European Community (CRD 2)
6. The Representative of the UNECE noted that the 51st Session of the UNECE Working Party4 had expressed its serious concerns that any duplication of standards must be completely avoided by both bodies and therefore, the Working Party had proposed a working procedure for closer cooperation between UNECE and the Codex Alimentarius Commission as follows:
When the Codex Alimentarius Commission decides to elaborate a new standard covered by an ECE Standard, it is recommended that the ECE Standard be adopted in the interest of facilitating trade and to avoid duplication.
Each body will make every effort to coordinate its priority list of future work to avoid duplication of efforts.
Both the UNECE Working Party and the CCFFV will circulate their draft standards and amendments for consideration and comment of the other.
Each UNECE Standard adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission should be recognized as such when published. This notification could be in the form of a footnote declaring that it is a UNECE Standard adopted by the Codex Aliemtarius Commission.
The practice of both secretariats actively participating in sessions of the other is essential and should continue.
7. Several delegations, including the Delegations of France and Spain, supported the UNECE proposal and noted that clear working procedures were necessary in order to arrive at harmonized standards and to avoid duplication of effort between the two bodies. Other delegations recognized that while the UNECE Standards could form the basis of similar standards elaborated by Codex, the opportunity to review and possibly modify the UNECE standards was necessary because of the format and elaboration procedure of Codex standards. The Observer of the European Community noted that their written comments supported the UNECE proposal, and that the EC standards are practically identical to UNECE standards. The Observer also stated that Codex should respect the UNECE Geneva Protocol in its entirety by deleting Codex provisions relating to sanitary measures.
8. The Representative of the UNECE highlighted the previous successful cooperation between the two bodies in arriving at harmonized quality provisions for avocado and mango standards, and stressed that such cooperation would continue in the future. The Codex Secretariat noted that the Commission's decision to modify the Committee's terms of reference did not remove the long standing procedures for cooperation between the two bodies (Codex Alimentarius Procedural Manual, Ninth Edition, pages 150–151).
9. The Codex Secretariat informed the Committee that sections of the UNECE proposal related to the coordination of priority lists (point 2), the opportunity of each body to comment on their respective standards (point 3) and the participation of Secretariats at each others sessions (point 5) were already covered in the Committee's terms of reference and/or were long established practices between the bodies. The Codex adoption of quality provisions of UNECE standards without discussion or changes (UNECE point 1) was stated to be impossible under current Uniform Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts.
10. In relation to point 4 of the UNECE proposal, the Committee agreed to the following proposal of the Codex/UNECE Secretariats for a footnote in all similar Codex and UNECE Standards to prevent confusion in the trade by highlighting the possible differences between the Standards:
“The commercial quality provisions in this standard are equivalent to the corresponding provisions of the (UNECE or Codex) Standard, with the following exceptions:”
11. In taking this decision, the Committee stressed the previous decision of the Commission that whenever possible, the quality provisions of Codex standards should be harmonized with similar standards already elaborated by the UNECE, although it was stressed that changes to the UNECE provisions might be necessary by virtue of the different needs of Codex member governments. Several delegations expressed the view that when a Codex standard was elaborated for produce covered by a UNECE standard, the latter should be made available by the Codex Secretariat to member countries for information. However, it was noted that the UNECE could provide their standards in the form of comments to the Codex Secretariat as per established Codex procedures.
CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT CODEX STANDARDS AT STEP 7
DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR BANANAS5 (Agenda Item 4a)
12. The Committee recalled that at its last session (ALINORM 95/35, para. 41) it had agreed to return the draft Standard to Step 6 to take into account the extensive comments received and in view of the work of the European Community on a standard for bananas. The Committee noted that the EC regulation establishing quality requirements for bananas entered into force on 1 January 1995 and that it applied to green bananas while the draft Codex standard applied to bananas at all stages of marketing.
13. The Committee agreed with the view expressed by several delegations that the standard should apply only to green bananas in order to reflect current practices and to facilitate international trade. Section 1, Definition, was amended accordingly, while making it clear that only bananas intended for fresh consumption were covered by the standard. The Committee also reasserted its earlier decision that the definition should not include specific groups or varieties, as all varieties of Musa spp. intended for fresh consumption were covered by the scope. However, it was agreed that a list of varieties would be appended to the Standard.
14. In Section 2.1, Minimum Requirements, provisions relating to the characteristics of the variety were deleted and reference was made to the absence of pests to make the text consistent with other standards. The Committee agreed to the proposal of the Delegation of France to include a number of defects which would adversely affect keeping quality and fitness for consumption (bending, desiccation, fungal contamination). In Section 2.1.1, it was further agreed to refer to physiological maturity to distinguish it from commercial maturity, and to take into account the ripening process.
15. In Section 3, Provisions Concerning Sizing, the Committee agreed to the proposals made by Costa Rica, Spain and France to clarify the determination of size, grade and the reference fruit for sizing for Cavendish and Gros Michel varieties. After an extensive discussion on size ranges, the Committee decided to include requirements for a minimal length of 14 cm and a minimum grade of 2.7 cm instead of size ranges to allow for more flexibility in trade. The Sections on Uniformity (5.1) and Labelling (6.2) were amended accordingly to delete the reference to size code.
16. In Section 5, the Committee agreed to include a new Section 5.3 on Presentation in order to clarify types of presentation (e.g., institutional pack) and to provide additional guidance concerning packing to prevent damages of the fruit.
17. In Section 6.2, Non Retail Containers, the second sentence was deleted as bananas were not transported in bulk. The Delegation of Brazil expressed the view that reference to the region of origin should be mandatory as some areas were declared pest-free. The Secretariat recalled that plant protection requirements were outside the competence of Codex and the Committee noted that the current wording allowed member countries to establish additional requirements at the national level.
Status of the Draft Codex Standard for Bananas
18. The Committee agreed to advance the draft Standard for Bananas (as included in Appendix III) to Step 8 for adoption by the 22nd Session of the Commission.
DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR MANGOSTEENS6 (Agenda Item 4b)
19. In Section 2.1, Minimum Requirements, the Committee agreed to make amendments to clarify requirements concerning the calyx and peduncle, the presence of latex, and the texture of the peel. Reference was also made to the colour of the skin in relation to maturity.
20. In Section 3, Sizing, the Committee agreed to a proposal to extend the size range and to include sizing by the maximum diameter of the equatorial section. The Labelling requirements were amended accordingly (Section 6.2.4).
Status of the Draft Codex Standard for Mangosteens
21. The Committee agreed to advance the draft Standard (see Appendix II) to Step 8 for adoption by the 22nd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX STANDARDS AT STEP 4
PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR ORANGES7 (Agenda Item 5a)
22. The Secretariat recalled that its last session (ALINORM 95/35, paras. 54–55) had agreed to have the draft revised on the basis of the discussions held during the meeting and the comments received. The presentation and language were also aligned with other Codex standards and with the UNECE Standard for Citrus Fruit (FFV-14).
23. The Delegation of Spain expressed its objection to the consideration of the standard in its present form as it was of the view that the UNECE standard should be adopted without modification, and the Committee had an extensive discussion on the opportunity to proceed with consideration of the standard. Some delegations pointed out that in view of the cooperation between UNECE and Codex, the UNECE standard for citrus should be made available for comparison as a prerequisite for any work on the current draft. Some delegations also suggested that as the comments included significant changes to the text, and little time had been allowed to governments to review them, consideration of the standard should be deferred until the next session. Several delegations however pointed out that consideration of the standard had already been postponed in view of the extensive comments, that the present draft already took into account the UNECE provisions and advantage should be taken of the opportunity to discuss the text thoroughly. The Committee agreed to go through the provisions of the standard and identify the areas where further work would be required.
24. In Section 2.1 Minimum Requirements, the Delegation of the United States made the following proposals: 1) to delete “practically”. After consideration of the issues involved for inspection purposes, the Committee agreed to retain this term, with the understanding that the Delegation would present a definition to the next session; 2) to include as an Appendix to the standard a Guide for Use in Scoring Freezing Injury. This document is appended to the report as Appendix VI to allow governments to comment on it; 3) it was further agreed to include “damage by pulled stems” in the list of defects.
25. In Section 2.1.4, the Committee discussed the proposal from the Delegation of Cuba to include oranges which retained a green colour at the stage of maturity, in view of climatic conditions in the tropics. It was also noted that no confusion should be made with unripe fruit grown in other areas, and the Committee agreed to insert a footnote to the effect that “oranges grown in the tropics can be of a green colour, provided the fruit meets the maturity requirements of the standard”. The Delegation of Spain objected to this decision. The Delegation of the United States proposed adding a new Section 2.1.5 (Discolouration) due to climatic growing conditions in some regions.
26. The Delegation of Japan proposed to delete Section 2.1.3 (Minimum Juice Content) and did not agree that specific figures should be requested. The Committee noted the proposal from the Delegation of Mexico for higher minimum juice contents, but retained the current values as reflecting an average between different areas of production.
27. In Section 3, Sizing, the Delegation of the United States proposed to delete all reference to size ranges and several delegations pointed out that the current sizes corresponded to usual trade practices and were the result of a consensus between all interested countries. The Committee agreed that further consideration should be given to this matter at the next session.
28. In Section 5.1 Uniformity, the Committee agreed to add a reference to the degree of ripeness and development. Notwithstanding a proposal from the Delegation of the United States to delete the reference to degreening, the Committee agreed to retain this provision as the percentage of fruit without calyx would be higher after degreening. The Delegation of Cuba did not agree with the provisions concerning the calyx, as the absence of the calyx did not effect the internal quality or appearance of the fruit.
29. The Committee noted the proposals of the Delegation of the United States to refer back to the relevant committees Sections 7 and 8, and to include a Section 9, Definitions.
Status of the Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Oranges
30. The Committee agreed to return the proposed draft Standard to Step 3 (as presented in Appendix V) for additional comments.
PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR ASPARAGUS8 (Agenda Item 5b)
31. The Fifth Session of the Codex Committee on Tropical Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (ALINORM 95/35, paras. 75–76) requested the UNECE to consider the provisions set out in the proposed draft Codex Standard for Asparagus, especially those relating to diameter and length of the stem, with a view towards amending the UNECE Standard.
32. This request was discussed at the 41 st Session of the UNECE Meeting of Experts on Coordination of Standardization of Fresh Fruits in Vegetables (Geneva, 10–12 May 1995), where it was decided to revise the UNECE Standard for Asparagus, especially in regard to provisions concerning sizing.
33. The Committee noted that as the UNECE Standard was revised to take account of slender varieties of green asparagus grown in tropical regions, it was suggested that the continued elaboration of a Codex standard restricted to green asparagus only was unnecessary. However, in view of the Commission's request to harmonize quality provisions of Codex standards with quality provisions of similar UNECE texts, several delegations suggested the elaboration of a new proposed draft Codex standard on the basis of the UNECE standard. It was noted that this would result in a fully harmonized international Codex Standard applicable to all types of asparagus.
Status of the Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Asparagus
34. The Committee agreed that the Codex and UNECE Secretariats would elaborate a harmonized proposed draft Standard Codex Standard for Asparagus based on the quality provisions of the UNECE standard, for circulation and government comments at step 3 prior to the Committee's seventh session.
PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR LIMES9 (Agenda Item 5c)
35. The Committee recalled that at its last Session it had agreed (ALINORM 95/35, para. 61) that the revised version of the Standard would be returned for additional comments at step 3.
36. Notwithstanding the suggestion of the Delegation of Thailand that the Standard should be expanded to cover Citrus aurantifolia as an additional species of lime (Section 1), the Committee decided to leave this section as drafted.
37. The Committee agreed to add Minimum Requirements (Section 2.1) stating that limes must be “practically free from pests” and “pipless”.
38. Although the Delegation of Cuba and other delegations requested variations on the 42% minimum juice and colouring provisions (Section 2.1.2), the Committee agreed to leave this requirement as drafted.
39. The Committee agreed to specify colour defects by percentages (25% for Class I and 50% for Class II) as opposed to ratios in Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 for clarity. Percentages were also added to the centimeter provisions (5 % for Class I and 8 % for Class II) for skin defects to allow for flexible requirements.
40. The Committee had extensive discussions on Section 3, Provisions Concerning Sizing. Although the delegation of Thailand suggested the use of letter size as opposed to number size codes for consistency with other Codex standards, the Committee retained the number code provisions because of their extensive use in trade.
41. The Committee discussed the proposal of Israel to add a size code “5” with a diameter range of 42–49 mm to reflect current trading practices. It was noted that a similar UNECE provision had the same diameter range. However, the Committee agreed to add a size code 5 with a diameter range of 42–46 mm.
42. The delegations of Brazil, Japan and Thailand questioned the logic of including overlapping diameter provisions in this section, as it was possible to have limes meeting multiple diameter (i.e., size code) ranges. Other delegations explained that this was a long standing practice in the industry which reflected the inherent non-uniformity of the fruit. It was also noted that the requirement applied to consignments and not to individual fruits.
43. The Committee accepted the proposal that section 4.2 should be clarified by indicating that that the size tolerance applied to limes corresponding to the size immediately below or above that indicated on the package. An absolute minimum of 40mm was added.
44. The Committee agreed to add a statement that the colour of limes in extra class must be uniform in Section 5.1 (Uniformity). The Committee also agreed that the term “produce” would replace “product” throughout the text and that Sections 7.2 (Pesticide Residues) and 8 (Hygiene) would be aligned with other Codex Standards.
Status of the Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Limes
45. The Committee agreed to advance the proposed draft Standard (see Appendix IV) to the 43rd Session of the Executive Committee for adoption at Step 5.
PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR PUMMELOS10 (Agenda Item 5d)
46. The Committee agreed at its last Session (ALINORM 95/35, para. 80) to return the proposed draft Standard for additional comments at Step 3.
47. In order to prevent the misinterpretation of the various Spanish common names used to describe the species, it was agreed that the Spanish title of the standard should read as Citrus grandis L., qualified by the English term Pumello, with a note indicating the various Spanish common names in countries where the terms are used.
48. The Committee agreed to align Section 2.1, Minimum Characteristics, with similar provisions in the lime standard for consistency. An additional Section 2.1.2, Minimum Maturity Requirements, with a minimum total soluble solids content of 8 %, was added. Defects in colouring and skin along with their corresponding percentages were also added to Classes I (Section 2.2.2) and II (Section 2.2.3).
49. The Committee accepted the proposal of Israel to revise Section 3 (Provisions Concerning Sizing) to allow for diameter as well as weight ranges. Reference Letters were also changed to Reference Numbers to reflect current practices in the trade. Section 6.2.4 (Commercial Description) was adjusted accordingly.
Status of the Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Pummelos
50. The Committee agreed to advance the proposed draft Standard (see Appendix VII) to the 43rd Session of the Executive Committee for adoption at Step 5.
PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR GUAVAS11 (Agenda Item 5e)
51. The proposed draft Standard was prepared by Mexico, as requested by the Committee at its last Session (ALINORM 95/35, para. 112).
52. In Section 2.1, Minimum Requirements, the Committee agreed to amend the last paragraph of the section on maturity to make it consistent with current standards. Redundant indents in the section were therefore removed.
53. In Section 2.2, Classification, the Committee had an exchange of views on the limit allowed for skin defects and the Delegation of Japan expressed the view that specific figures (such as 0.25 cm2) should not be included. Several delegations felt that such figures were necessary for inspection purposes and the Committee therefore retained the provisions for Class I and II. The provisions were changed to millimeter measurements for clarity. The Committee noted the proposal of the Delegation of Thailand to expand the size range to cover guavas of a larger size and refer to weight in addition to diameter.
Status of the Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Guavas
54. The Committee agreed to advance the Proposed Draft Standard (as included in Appendix IX) for adoption at Step 5 by the 43rd Session of the Executive Committee.
PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR CHAYOTES12 (Agenda Item 5f)
55. The proposed draft Standard was prepared and introduced by the Delegation of Costa Rica, as requested by the Committee at its last Session (ALINORM 95/35, para. 112).
56. The Committee agreed to add “Cucurbitaceae family” and the name of the author to Section 1 (Definition of Produce) and to refer to the fruit of chayote for completeness.
57. In Section 2.1, Minimum Requirements, several additional provisions were added concerning freedom from damage caused by low temperatures and the sun, freedom from hard spines, visible signs of germination and texture of the flesh.
58. Specific provisions in Class Extra and Class II (Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2) concerning the shape and colour of the fruit were removed, as these characteristics were covered by general provisions of the Standard.
59. In Section 3 (Provisions Concerning Sizing), an additional size class “D” was added, with the stipulation that individual fruits within the category could not differ by more than 150 grammes. A minimum weight of 200 grammes was stipulated and other size classes were adjusted accordingly.
60. The Quality Tolerance (Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2) percentages and Uniformity provisions (Section 5.1) were adjusted to conform to other Codex Standards.
12 CX/FFV 96/10 and comments from Mexico and South Africa (CX/FFV 96/10 - Add. 1)
61. The Committee agreed that the footnote in Section 5.2 (Packaging) stating “For the purpose of this standard, this includes recycled material of food-grade quality” would be removed from all Codex Standards for fresh produce, as these provisions are considered by other international bodies.
Status of the Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Chayotes
62. The Committee agreed to advance the proposed draft Standard (see Appendix VIII) to the 43rd Session of the Executive Committee for adoption at Step 5. The Delegation of Costa Rica suggested that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues consider the establishment of maximum residue limits for this commodity.
PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR FRESH COCONUT (Agenda Item 5g)
63. The Committee noted that no draft had been prepared for this produce and decided not to proceed with the elaboration of a standard at this stage. It was removed from the priority list. The Committee also noted that the Codex Coordinating Committee for Asia was considering a number of standards and codes relating to processed coconut products (ALINORM 97/15, para. 35).
PROPOSED DRAFT REVISED CODEX STANDARD FOR PINEAPPLES
64. The Observer from COLEACP recalled that their organization represented the producers and importers of the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific regions, and had established quality requirements for pineapple. In view of the existence of a Codex Standard for Pineapple, they submitted to the Committee a proposal for revision of the standard, distributed by the Codex Secretariat for government comments at Step 3.
65. The Delegations of Spain, Uruguay and France expressed the view that a note should be included to refer to the Smooth Cayenne type in view of its importance in trade and the Committee had an extensive exchange of views on this issue. It was however agreed that no mention should be made of a specific type as all commercial varieties were covered by the Definition and this was also applied throughout the standard.
66. In Section 2.1, Minimum Requirements, the Committee agreed that the requirement for “whole” should also refer to fruit without the crown as this corresponded to common practice in some regions. Consequential amendments were made to Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 (Classification). The presence or absence of the peduncle was also left optional.
67. The Delegations of Japan and China proposed to delete provisions concerning minimum sugar content. However, the Committee agreed to require a minimum soluble solids contents of 12 Brix Degrees and the wording of the maturity requirements was harmonized with the standard for banana. A number of defects appearing on the transversal section were also included (white flesh for yellow varieties, fibrous flesh etc.).
68. In sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.4, the Committee considered the proposal to include colour scale and requirements, as some delegations and the Observer from COLEACP were of the view that such references were extensively used in trade. Other delegations noted that different scales existed according to the regions and the inclusion of a specific scale would create confusion. As no consensus could be reached at this stage, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this matter until such time as a general colour classification could be established. The Labelling section was amended accordingly.
69. In Section 3, Sizing, the Committee could not accept the new scale proposed and decided that the provisions on sizing should be further considered by the next session. In Section 5.2.1, Description of Containers, it was further agreed to delete reference to the dimensions of packages. The Committee agreed to delete all references to bulk and bulk transport from the Standard.
70. In Section 6.2.4, Commercial Identification, reference to the tare weight was deleted, as well as the storage temperature for consistency with other Codex Standards. The wording of Sections 7 and 8 was aligned with the other standards.
Status of the Proposed Draft Revised Codex Standard for Pineapples
71. The Committee agreed to return the Proposed Draft Revised Standard to Step 3 (see Appendix X) for additional comments and consideration by the next session.
PROPOSED DRAFT CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE QUALITY INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION OF FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES13 (Agenda Item 6)
72. The Committee agreed at its last Session to circulate the proposed draft Code at Step 3 (ALINORM 95/35, para. 105).
73. The Committee agreed to insert a introductory statement to clearly specify that the Code only applied to inspection and certification as related to Codex fresh fruit and vegetable standards.
74. The Committee agreed to remove all references to “tropical” from the titles and body of the text. Terminology within the text was also harmonized with identical Codex terms used for inspection and certification, i.e., officially recognized, as developed by the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems. It was noted that the Code allowed for the total delegation of this authority to officially recognized bodies.
75. Section 1.5, Inspection, was modified to indicate that the request to perform the inspection should be made in a timely manner. Section 2.1 was strengthened by indicating that inspection personnel should have the adequate means to perform their work and Section 2.3 was clarified to indicate that re-inspection for breakage of a seal was only required when a seal had been used. Section 2.2 was completed by adding a footnote that certain countries had mandatory requirements for export inspection.
76. Notwithstanding the opinion of the Delegation of Thailand that Section 2.5.3 (Sampling) of Annex 1 should include maximum limits for the number of primary samples to be taken, the Committee agreed to leave this section unchanged.
77. The Committee agreed that Annex III (Certificate of Quality for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables) should be harmonized with the UNECE Control Certificate, and that the UNECE Explanatory Notes on the Use of the Control Certificate should be added.
80. The Committee also accepted the offer of Canada to prepare Annex II (Inspection Site Requisites) of the Code for consideration at its next session.
APPLICATION OF QUALITY TOLERANCES AT IMPORT14 (Agenda Item 7)
81. The Delegation of Canada introduced the working paper, recalling that the last session (ALINORM 95/35, para. 28) had agreed to discuss the establishment of specific tolerances at import to take into account changes occurring in fresh fruit and vegetables during transport and storage. The following options were considered: retain identical quality tolerances at the import and export stages; an increase in tolerances at the import stage; contractual agreement between buyers and sellers.
82. The Committee expressed its appreciation to the Delegation of Canada for this clear presentation of the issues involved. Some delegations were of the view that current tolerances should be retained, especially as the evolution of the produce was taken into account in the general requirements. Other delegations felt that the document required further consideration and the Committee agreed to discuss the matter in more detail at its next session.
PROGRESS REPORT ON THE USE OF OBJECTIVE INDICES OF MATURITY IN COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS OF FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES (Agenda Item 8)
83. The Committee recalled that, following discussion of maturity in the standard for litchis at its last session (ALINORM 95/35, para. 21), it had been agreed to consider the general issue of maturity indices.
84. The Committee agreed that, although no document had been prepared for the present session, this matter should be kept on the agenda as the evaluation of maturity was an important aspect of quality control. The Secretariat proposed to send a Circular Letter to governments asking for information and proposals on the use of maturity indices and the Committee agreed that the comments received would be considered by the next session.
PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE PRIORITY LIST FOR STANDARDIZATION OF FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES (Agenda Item 9)
85. At the request of Uruguay, the Committee agreed to add Apples and Pears to the Priority List. The Delegation of France did not agree with this decision. The UNECE Secretariat offered to provide the responsible parties with a copy of the UNECE Standard on Apples and Pears (FFV-01) in order to establish a harmonized standard.
86. The Committee accepted the offer of Mexico, assisted by Thailand, to prepare a proposed draft standard for Mexican Limes (Citrus aurantafolia Swingle); Cuba, assisted by Argentina, to prepare a proposed draft standard for Grapefruit (Citrus paradisi MacFarlane); Thailand to prepare a proposed draft standard for Longan (Dimocarpus longan Lour.), and; South Africa to prepare a proposed draft Standard for Ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe). The Committee noted that these proposals for new work would be forwarded to the Executive Committee for approval.
87. The UNECE Secretariat offered to provide Cuba with a copy of the UNECE Standard for Citrus Fruit (FFV-14) in order to avoid duplication of effort and to establish a harmonized standard.
88. The revised Priority List is attached to this report as Appendix XII.
OTHER BUSINESS AND FUTURE WORK (Agenda Item 10)
89. The Committee had no other business to discuss. The Committee agreed on its Current Status of Work (see Annex I).
DATE AND PLACE OF NEXT SESSION (Agenda Item 11)
90. The Committee was informed that the seventh Session of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables would be held in Mexico City in approximately eighteen months time, with the understanding that the final dates would be determined by the Codex and Mexican Secretariats.
ANNEX
CODEX COMMITTEE ON FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
CURRENT STATUS OF WORK
| SUBJECT | STEP | FOR ACTION BY | REFERENCE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bananas | 8 | 22nd CAC | Appendix III |
| Mangosteens | 8 | 22nd CAC | Appendix II |
| Limes | 5 | 43rd EXEC | Appendix IV |
| Pummelos | 5 | 43rd EXEC | Appendix VII |
| Guavas | 5 | 43rd EXEC | Appendix IX |
| Chayotes | 5 | 43rd EXEC | Appendix VIII |
| Code of Practice for Quality Inspection and Certification | 5 | 43rd EXEC | Appendix XI |
| Oranges | 3 | Governments 7th CCFFV | Paras. 22–30 and Appendix V |
| Pineapples | 3 | Governments 7th CCFFV | Paras. 64–71 and Appendix X |
| Asparagus | 2/3 | Codex/UNECE Governments 7th CCFFV | Paras. 31–34 |
| Mexican Limes | 1 | 43rd EXEC Mexico/Thailand 7th CCFFV | Para. 86 |
| Grapefruit | 1 | 43rd EXEC Cuba/Argentina 7th CCFFV | Para. 86 |
| Longan | 1 | 43rd EXEC Thailand 7th CCFFV | Para. 86 |
| Ginger | 1 | 43rd EXEC South Africa 7th CCFFV | Para. 86 |
| Guide for Use in Scoring Freezing Injury | - | Governments 7th CCFFV | Para. 24 and Appendix VI |
| The Use of Objective Indices of Maturity in Commercial Transactions of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables | - | Governments 7th CCFFV | Paras. 83–84 |
| Application of Quality Tolerances at Import | - | 7th CCFFV | Paras. 81–82 |
| Priority List | - | Governments 7th CCFFV | Paras. 85–88 and Appendix XII |
