63. The Commission had before it working papers prepared by the Secretariat (ALINORM 70/41 and Addenda 1–5) containing proposed amendments and comments from governments on the Step 8 standards. The Commission also received proposals for the amendment of the standards from the floor. The Commission also took into account the endorsement and recommendations of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling on the labelling provisions of the Step 8 standards.
Labelling
64. The Commission agreed that section 5 of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (CAC/RS 1-1969) should not be automatically attracted to the labelling section of Codex standards, since section 5.1 would clearly have no place in specific Codex standards, and section 5.2, dealing with irradiated foods, would need to be examined on a case by case basis to see whether or not it was applicable to the standard concerned. The Codex Committee on Food Additives would have the possibility of judging the safety of the proposed application in each case.
Food Additives
65. The Commission confirmed its previous decision that food additives, which had not been endorsed or temporarily endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives, should be deleted from the standards before issuing them to governments for acceptance.
Contaminants
66. The Commission agreed that the general statement dealing with pesticide residue tolerances should be deleted from the standards unless tolerances applicable to the product covered by the standard had been adopted by the Commission at Step 8. In this connection, the Commission noted that pesticide residue tolerances were being established not on a food by food basis, but on a pesticide by pesticide basis. Thus, in the case of many standards, it would not be possible to insert a reference to applicable pesticide residue tolerances by the time the standards had been adopted by the Commission at Step 8.
Editorial Revision of Standards Adopted at Step 8
67. The Commission agreed that there was a need to revise standards editorially before issuing them to governments for acceptance in the three languages of the Commission, and that this was particularly so in the case of the section on methods of analysis. The Commission agreed that the Secretariat might exercise a reasonable degree of discretion, in consultation with the Chairmen of the Committees concerned, in removing any ambiguities or obscurities in provisions of Step 9 standards.
Remarks on Drained Weight
68. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany was of the opinion that in the case of food packed in liquid media the consumer would be better protected if he were informed as to the quantity of the ingoing food item in question. It was therefore in favour of establishing minimum limits for ingoing food ingredients in the Standards for Canned Pineapple, Canned Shrimp and Prawns, and certain Edible Fungus Products, and of declaring the quantity of ingoing food rather than drained weight.
Remarks on Declaration of Country of Origin
69. The delegation of the Argentine wished to go on record as stating that the declaration of country of origin of all foods should be mandatory.
70. The Commission considered the above standard which was contained in Appendix IV to ALINORM 70/20. The Commission also considered the redrafted labelling section of the standard as presented by the Secretariat in document CX/FL 70/3. The Commission agreed on the following amendments to the draft standard:
| 1.1(b) | To read as follows: “packed with water or other suitable liquid medium; it may be packed with nutritive sweeteners, as specified in sub-section 2.1.1(c), seasonings or other ingredients appropriate to the product;” |
| 1.3(b) | Slices should be translated as “rodajas” in the Spanish version of the standard. |
| 2.1 | “dry sweeteners” should read “dry nutritive sweeteners”. This change to be made wherever the words “dry sweeteners” appear in the standard. |
| 2.3 | This should read 2.2 with appropriate numerical changes thereafter. |
| 2.3.2 | The last part of this provision to read “… and canned pineapple with special ingredients shall have a flavour characteristic of that imparted by the pineapple and the other substances used.” |
| 2.3.8 | Delete the words “within each classification”. |
| 6.1.1 | Add the words “when completely filled” at the end of this provision. |
| 6.1.2.2 | Add the word “examined” after the words “of all containers” in the second line of this provision. |
| 6.1.4 | Delete the words “within each classification”. |
| 7.2(c) | (Document CX/FL 70/3) Add the words “and water” after the word “dimethylpolysiloxane” |
71. The Commission agreed that the following comments should be recorded in the report.
Nutritive Sweeteners
A number of delegations drew attention to the fact that in most Codex standards the term “sugars” and not “nutritive sweeteners” was used. It was pointed out that the nutritive sweeteners concerned were listed in the standard and that the term “nutritive sweetener” had been used in the standards for processed fruits and vegetables which had already been adopted by the Commission at Step 8 and advanced to Step 9. The Commission agreed that it would be desirable to have uniformity on this point in the standards.
Other Permitted Ingredients
The delegation of Poland reserved its position on the use of vinegar in canned pineapple.
Definition of Defects. Excessive Trim
The Commission noted a proposal of the delegation of the U.S.A. to amend the provision on excessive tim in such a way that there would be some objective measurement of the term “excessive”. The Commission decided not to amend the provision but thought that the reasons advanced by the delegation of the U.S.A. in favour of amending the provision should be brought to the attention of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables so that the Committee could consider whether an amendment of the standard would be necessary.
2.3.8 - Acceptance
The Secretariat expressed the view that the meaning of the words “within each classification” did not appear to be entirely clear. The Commission, following an intervention by the delegation of the U.S.A., decided to delete these words from the standard but agreed that the Secretariat should confirm with the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables that the words had no significance.
Food Additives
The delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany and Poland reserved their positions on the use of dimethylpolysiloxane in canned pineapple.
Contaminants
The Commission noted that the maximum level for tin contained in the standard had not been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives, and that it would be necessary to carry out a further study of the problem of tin in containers before any final conclusion could be reached. The Commission agreed to retain the figure of 250 mg/kg provisionally and to indicate by way of a footnote to the standard that the provision would be reviewed in two years' time. A considerable number of delegations thought that the level for tin was too high and that it should be reduced. The delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany, Poland and Yugoslavia reserved their positions on the level for tin in the standard. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Polish delegation that the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables should consider in addition to tin the subject of other contaminants in all their standards, including those which had been passed to Step 9.
Methods of Analysis
With reference to the provision on minimum fill of container, the Commission agreed to a proposal made by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling at its fifth session that there was a need for a precise method of determining the water capacity of containers and requested the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables to elaborate a suitable method, which would then be submitted to the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling for endorsement as a referee method. The Commission also agreed that a general method for determining the water capacity should be elaborated for all commodities being dealt with by the Commission. Notwithstanding the remarks of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling and views expressed by the delegations of Canada and Cuba, the Commission agreed that it was appropriate to retain in the standard the reference to the Sampling Plans for Prepackaged Foods as being suitable for processed fruits and vegetables. It was agreed that the reference in the standard should be to the Sampling Plans for Processed Fruits and Vegetables.
Advancement of Standard to Step 9
72. The Commission agreed to advance the Standard for Canned Pineapple to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards. The delegation of Cuba reserved its position on this decision in view of the absence of provisions on contaminants, and because of the doubts of a number of delegations regarding the suitability of the Sampling Plans.
73. The Commission examined the above standard which was contained in Appendix II of ALINORM 70/11. It was agreed that the following comments should be recorded and the following amendments were agreed upon:
Food Additives
74. It was noted that at the time when the addition of alphatocopherol to fats and oils was considered by the Codex Committee on Food Additives, provision for this substance was not made in the above standard. As a result, olive oils were not included in the endorsement of alpha-tocopherol in fats and oils. The Commission agreed that it was reasonable to assume that this was only a formality and that the addition of this natural substance at levels intended only to replace the alpha-tocopherol destroyed during processing, was not in any way a hazard to health. It was also agreed to delete the words “natural and synthetic” since specifications existed for alpha-tocopherol and since the Codex Committee on Food Additives had agreed in principle that no distinction should be made between natural substances and their synthetic equivalents. It was further agreed that the limit of 200 mg/kg was in respect of the total alpha-tocopherol in the final product.
Labelling
75. The Commission agreed that, as far as the English text was concerned, the expression “refined residue olive oil” should be replaced by the expression “refined olive-residue oil”. This amendment would also be made wherever the expression “refined residue olive oil” occured in the standard. In section VII.1(v), the expression “refined olive oil” was used in error. This would now read “refined olive-residue oil”. As regards the provision on country of origin, the Commission agreed that the reference to the product “undergoing processing in a second country which changes its nature” included the classification of olive oils set out in the provision entitled “Name of the Product”.
Methods of Analysis and Sampling
76. The Commission agreed to an amendment concerning the alumina to be used in the determination of the specific extinction in ultra-violet. As regards the interpretation of a doubtful colour reaction in the teaseed oil test, the Commission preferred and adopted the text elaborated by the International Olive Oil Council and proposed by the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils rather than that proposed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling. As the provision in the standard was for a negative test, the Commission agreed that a note concerning a pink coloration was necessary and adopted the following text:
“Note
A pink colour shall be regarded as negative, since some olive oils yield this colour.”
The Italian delegation reserved its position on the range of limits in respect of the composition of olive oil, which it considered to be too wide. As regards the teaseed oil test, the Italian delegation stated that a pink colour should not be regarded as “negative” but as “doubtful”, and that the presence of teaseed oil must be confirmed by the determination of different steroids.
77. The Commission agreed that the method of determination of tocopherols adopted in the margarine standard should be considered by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling for endorsement in the Olive Oil Standard.
Advancement of Standard to Step 9
78. The Commission agreed to advance the Standard for Olive Oils to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards. The Commission agreed that when the standard was being sent out to governments for acceptance there should be a note in the introductory section of the document containing the standard, making it clear that the designations in Annex A to the International Olive Oil Agreement 1963 were not affected by the provisions of the standard. The representative of the IOOC put forward a text for this purpose and the Commission agreed that the Secretariat should take it into consideration in preparing the final note.
79. The Commission examined the above standard which was contained in Appendix III of ALINORM 70/11.
80. As regards the section of the standard on food additives, the Commission noted that the text which had been agreed to at its Sixth Session limiting the amount of colouring agents which may be added to this oil had been inadvertently omitted from the standard, and instructed the Secretariat to reinstate the text (see para. 146 of ALINORM 69/67). With regard to maximum level of use of the additives provided for in the standard, the Commission noted that the expression “not limited” meant in accordance with good manufacturing practice, as indicated in the Report of the Sixth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives. The delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany, Poland, Portugal and Switzerland reserved their positions on the food additives section of the standard.
81. With reference to the provision requiring a complete list of ingredients in the labelling section of the standard, the Commission noted that although sub-section 3.2 (c) (i) of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods was not applicable in the case of the standard under consideration, it was necessary to attract the preamble of sub-section 3.2(c), since the authority for the use of class names in place of specific names of ingredients was contained in the preamble to this sub-section which read: “A specific name shall be used for ingredients in the list of ingredients except that …”
Advancement of Standard to Step 9
82. The Commission agreed to advance the Standard for Edible Mustardseed Oil to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
83. The Commission considered the above standard which was contained in Appendix II of ALINORM 70/18, and agreed on the following amendments to the standard.
| 1. | SCOPE |
| Insert the word “individually” before the words “quick-frozen”. | |
| 3.3.2(c) | This sub-section should read as follows: “Discoloured skin - readily discernible deviation from the normal characteristic colour of the species concerned.” |
| 3.3.3(d) | This sub-section should read as follows: “Belly burn or loose belly bones - readily discernible enzymatic damage to the tissues in the area of the belly cavity, or loose belly bones in the abdominal cavity which have become detached from the flesh.” |
| 3.4.3(d) | Add the words “or loose belly bones” after “Belly burn” |
| 5.1 | This sub-section should read as follows: “The name of the product is the name prescribed for the particular species under para. 5.2 with the words “quick-frozen” and the words “dressed headless” or “dressed head-on”, as appropriate. However, the term “frozen” may be applied on the national level in countries where this term is customarily used for the type of product processed in accordance with subsection 2.1(b).” |
| 5.2 | Add the words “or Keta Salmon” after the words “Chum Salmon”. |
Add new 5.3
The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling that the following provision should be included in the standard:
“In addition to the particulars in 5.1 and 5.2, the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, distributor, importer, exporter or vendor of the food, and the country of origin shall be declared on the container or be given in the accompanying documents.”
84. The Commission agreed that the following points regarding the standard should be recorded in the Report:
There was considerable discussion on the use of the term “quick-frozen” in the title and scope sections of the standard. A number of delegations considered that the standard should apply to the frozen product in general. Some of these delegations pointed out that the term “quickfrozen” was not in common use in their countries and that a product frozen in accordance with the process laid down in the standard would, in their countries, be designated as a frozen product. Other delegations, which thought that the standard should apply to the frozen product in general, considered that if the standard applied only to the quickfrozen product, products frozen by other methods would not be subject to the provisions of the standard and this would not be in the interest of consumers. It was established that it was the intention of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products that the standard should apply to the quick-frozen product and that the product moving in trade was, almost entirely, quick-frozen in accordance with the provisions of the standard. It was also pointed out that the term “quick-frozen” indicated a special freezing process which resulted in a superior quality product to that which had been merely frozen. It emerged that the quick-freezing process was the only one currently in use on a commercial scale for the preparation of this product. The Commission agreed that the problem was essentially a labelling problem and that the standard defined the freezing process adequately. The Commission agreed therefore not to change the title of the standard and not to amend the scope section on this point. The delegations of the U.S.A., Canada, Denmark and Australia wished to go on record in support of the use of the term “frozen” in the scope section.
Some delegations considered that the last sentence of subsection 2.1(b) of the standard was not sufficiently precise in describing the conditions of transport and storage. The Commission agreed that there should be a reference, either by way of a footnote to the standard or by way of a note in the introductory section of the publication containing the standard, to the code of practice which was in the course of development by the Joint ECE/Codex Group of Experts on the Standardization of Quick Frozen Foods indicating that more precise data regarding conditions of transport, storage and distribution would be drawn up in due course in that code. A similar reference would also be made to the Code of Technological Practice for Frozen Fish being developed by FAO. A number of delegations were not in agreement with this and thought that no reference should be made to codes either in a footnote to the standard or in the introductory section of the publication containing the standard. It was pointed out that the reference to the codes would not form part of the provisions of the standard and would be for information purposes only.
The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany stated, with reference to sub-section 3.3.1(c), that it was essential to remove blood not only from the surface of the fish and body cavities, but also from the veins. On the proposal of the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, the Commission decided that this request should be discussed at the next session of the Committee, but that the standard should not be amended.
The Commission noted, with regard to section 5.1 of the standard that in the French version of the standard, the use of terms other than “surgelé” would not be permitted. The delegation of Canada wished to go on record as stating that the use of the term “frozen” should be permitted in designating the product.
It was recognized that the standard comprised minimum requirements and that additional requirements were necessary in Japan because of consumer preference, marketing and further processing requirements.
The Commission noted that the section on sampling and examination had been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.
Advancement of Standard to Step 9
85. The Commission agreed to advance the Standard for QuickFrozen Gutted Pacific Salmon to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
86. The Commission considered the above standard which was contained in Appendix IV of ALINORM 70/18, and agreed on the following amendments to the standard:
| 1. | SCOPE | |
| Delete all that follows after the word “containers”. | ||
| 2.1 | Definition | |
| (a) | The first sentence of this provision should be re-worded to read as follows: | |
| “Canned shrimps or prawns is the processed meat of shrimps or prawns of similar size in any combination of species of the families Penaeidae, Pandalidae, Crangonidae and Palaemonidae.” | ||
| (b) | The Spanish translation of “packing media” should be amended here and wherever else it occurs in the standard. | |
| 2.2 | Designation | |
| Delete this provision. | ||
| 4.1 | Ingredients | |
| This provision should be amended to read as follows: “The packing medium may consist of water, salt, lemon juice and sugars only.” | ||
| 4.2 | Raw Material | |
| Re-number 4.2 to read 4.1, and re-number 4.1 to read 4.2 | ||
| 4.3(b) | Odour and flavour | |
| (1) | The word “objectionable” should be translated as “anormale” in the French version of the standard. | |
| (2) | The second sentence of this provision should be amended to read as follows: “The natural odour and flavour reminiscent of iodoform is acceptable unless it is excessive.” | |
| 4.3(d) | Peeling | |
| Delete the word “nearly” in the expression “nearly free of shells. . . .”. | ||
| 4.3(f) | Tolerances | |
| Delete the word “other” in the expression “other defects”. | ||
| 5. | FOOD ADDITIVES | |
| The last sentence in the food additive section should be expanded to make it clear that, in addition, colours or mixtures of colours may be added at the level provided for in the standard for the purpose of restoring colour lost in processing. | ||
| 8.1 | The Name of the Food | |
| This provision should read as follows: “The name of the product shall be “shrimp” or “shrimps” or “prawns”. Consequential amendments should be made in other parts of the standard. | ||
| 8.3 | Net Contents | |
| The above heading should read “Quantity of Contents”. | ||
| 10.1 | Drained Weight | |
| In 10.1(a), the word “nor” should read “or”. The Spanish version of this provision should be corrected to make it clear that the figure of 75°F is a maximum not a minimum temperature. The Commission agreed that it would be necessary to make a number of minor amendments in the section on the determination of drained weight (rounding off of temperatures in degrees C, specifications for circular sieves to be in conformity with ISO standards). | ||
87. The Commission agreed that the following points should be recorded in the report of the session:
The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that a product processed by heat before being sealed in a container could not be regarded as having been fully preserved and that the shelf-life of such a product would be shorter than that of a product processed by heat after having been sealed in the container. Other delegations pointed out that modern methods of aseptic filling enabled an adequately preserved product to be prepared.
The delegation of Spain requested that the ingredients section of the standard should provide for the use of vinegar and olive oil. The Commission agreed not to expand the ingredients section, as it considered that products prepared with such ingredients were specialty products. The delegation of Spain reserved its position.
The Commission agreed that the additives listed in the standard could be added to the packing medium before filling. A number of delegations reserved their positions on various additives listed in the standard. The following delegations requested that their reservations be recorded. The delegations of Spain and Protugal reserved their positions on the use of calcium disodium EDTA and colours. The delegation of Italy also reserved its position on colours and on certain other additives, in particular, calcium disodium EDTA. The delegation of Portugal also reserved its position on the use of orthophosphoric acid. The delegation of Peru reserved its position since there were a number of additives listed which were not permitted to be used in Peru. The delegation of Japan reserved its position on the use of calcium disodium EDTA.
The Commission agreed that there should be no reference in the standard to section 5.2 of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, dealing with irradiated foods. The use of ionizing radiation was excluded by the definition section of the standard, and there was the possibility that the attraction of section 5.2 of the General Labelling Standard might be construed to mean that the use of ionizing radiation was permitted.
The Spanish delegation drew the Commission's attention to the generic name “camarones” (shrimps), stating that in the Spanish version of the standard, the word “camarones” could include various species, which in Spain and in other countries would need to be named specifically, in order to avoid confusion in international trade. The Spanish delegation gave the following list of species to the Secretariat. The Secretariat undertook to check whether all of the abovelisted species were intended to be covered by the standard.
| Camarón | : | Leander serratus |
| Quisquilla | : | Changon grangon |
| Gamba | : | Penaeus longirostris |
| Langostino | : | Penaeus keraturus |
| Carabinero | : | Plesiopenaeus edwardsianus |
The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany mad a general statement on date-marking of certain products of animal origin. In the Federal Republic of Germany, regulations requiring date-marking of such products had been in force for a number of years and had given satisfactory results. The delegation proposed that date-marking (either the date of manufacture or date beyond which the product should not be consumed) would be informative to the consumer. The delegation of Sweden supported this proposal in principle and indicated that Sweden would be introducing mandatory durability marking in 1971. The Commission decided, however, to make no change in the standard in this connection.
The Commission was informed that the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling had taken the view that the provision on size determination did not warrant endorsement, and that this provision could be associated with section 4.3 (f) of the standard dealing with tolerances for defects. The Commission considered a proposal made by the French delegation to replace the method for the determination of water capacity of a container by an ISO method (ISO/R90) and agreed to leave the text unchanged, since the provision in the standard was strictly related to the method endorsed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.
Advancement of Standard to Step 9
88. The Commission agreed to advance the Standard for Canned Shrimps or Prawns to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany reserved its position on this decision, because they thought there were a number of points in the standard which required reconsideration.
89. The Commission considered the General Standard for Edible Fungi and Fungus Products, which was contained in Appendix II of ALINORM 70/19. The Commission agreed on the following amendments to the standard:
| I. | SCOPE | |
| This section should be amended to read as follows: “This standard contains general requirements applicable to all edible fungi, whether fresh or processed, permitted for sale by the competent authorities in the consuming countries, except canned cultivated mushrooms of the genus Agaricus. Different requirements for the products covered by this standard may be laid down in group of products standards or in individual standards.” | ||
| II.1.2 | “boletus edulis” should read “Boletus edulis”. The word “morels” should be replaced by the word “Morchella” | |
| II.1.18 | Add new sub-section 1.18: “Cakes or loaves of fungus mycelium” | |
| II.2.4 | This sub-section should be amended to read as follows: “2.4 “Maggot damaged fungi” are fungi having holes caused by maggots. 2.4.1 “Seriously maggot damaged fungi” are fungi having four or more holes caused by maggots.” In the French version of the standard, “maggot damaged fungi” should be translated as “champignons vermiculés”. | |
| III.1.1 | Insert the word “practically” before “clean”. | |
| III.1.3.1(c) | This provision should read as follows: | |
| “Content of maggot damaged fungi - | max. 6% by weight of total damage including not more than 2% serious damage.” | |
| III.1.3.2(c) | This provision should read as follows: | |
| “Content of maggot damaged fungi - | max. 1% by weight of total damage including not more than 0.5% serious damage.” | |
| III.2.2.(e) | “Refined vegetable oil” should read “refined edible vegetable oil”. | |
| III.3.1.1(b) | This provision should read as follows: | |
| “Water content | - max. 6% freeze-dried - max. 12% dried other than freeze-dried, except for Shii-ta-ke mushrooms for which the maximum water content shall be 13%.” | |
| III.3.1.2(b) | This provision should read as follows: | |
| “Organic impurities of vegetable origin | - max. 0.02%, except for Shiita-ke mushrooms for which the maximum shall be 1%” | |
| III.3.1.2(c) | This provision should read as follows: | |
| “Content of maggot damaged fungi | - for wild growing fungi: max. 20% by weight of total damage. - for cultivated fungi: max. 1% by weight of total damage including not more than 0.5% serious damage.” | |
| III.3.3.1 | Add new sub-section (c) as follows: “(c) Vinegar - max. 2% expressed as acetic acid.” | |
| III.3.3.2(c) | This provision should read as follows: | |
| “Content of maggot damaged fungi | - for wild growing fungi: max. 6% by weight of total damage including not more than 2% serious damage. - for cultivated fungi: max. 1% by weight of damage including not more than 0.5% serious damage.” | |
| III.3.5.2(c) 3.6.1(c) 3.7.2(c) 3.10.2(c) | Provision on maggot damaged fungi to be amended, so that provisions will allow max. of 6% total damage including 2% serious damage in the case of wild growing fungi, and max. of 1% total damage including 0.5% serious damage in the case of cultivated fungi. | |
| IV. | FOOD ADDITIVES | |
| Delete the words “in fungus products listed in this standard where appropriate”. | ||
| VI.1.1 | Minimum Fill | |
| Add the words “when completely filled” at the end of this provision. | ||
| VI.1.2(b) | Delete the provision “Sauce or oil packs” which was in square brackets [ ] | |
| VIII.1.1 | The Name of the Food | |
| Amend the last sentence of this provision to read as
follows: “The method of processing to which the product has been subjected, e.g. “dried” or “sterilized” or “quick-frozen” shall be indicated on the label.” | ||
| VIII.1.3 | Delete the word “other” in the first line of this sub-section and substitute the word “scientific” for “Latin” in the expression “(including Latin name)”. | |
| VIII.1.6 | Add the following sub-section VIII.1.6 which had been
inadvertently omitted from the standard: “If stalks have been added to fresh fungi or fungus products, the words ‘stalks added’ shall appear on the label.” | |
| VIII.2 | List of Ingredients | |
| At the end of the sentence in this provision add the words “except for dried fungi”. | ||
| IX.3 | Determination of Washed Drained Weight: Sauce Packs, in Oil | |
| Delete this section from the standard. | ||
90. The Commission agreed that the following points should be recorded in the Report:
The Commission agreed that the scope section should be amended to exclude canned cultivated mushrooms of the genus Agaricus, for which a standard was being developed by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables. The representative of the Economic Commission for Europe requested that fresh cultivated mushrooms for which the ECE had adopted a Recommendation should be excluded from the scope of the standard. The delegation of Poland indicated that there was no conflict between this General Standard and the standard being developed by the ECE and the Commission decided not to exclude fresh cultivated mushrooms from the scope section of the standard.
The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany considered that the tolerance of 8% for organic impurities in the case of cultivated fungi was too high. The Commission noted that this was the figure which had been adopted in the ECE text for mushrooms in the lowest quality class (Class 2).
With reference to section VIII.1.2 of the standard, the representative of the ECE drew attention to the fact that in the ECE text for fresh cultivated mushrooms, the Latin name of the species was not required to be declared. As the general standard required the declaration of the Latin name for fresh fungi, the representative of the ECE indicated his disagreement with the decision.
The Commission was informed that the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling needed clarification on “mineral impurities which, after ashing, remain as insoluble residues in hydrochloric acid” as the two methods proposed, although both in conformity with this definition, dealt with different types of mineral “impurities” (sand, earth, but also mineral components of foods) and gave different results. The Commission was also informed that the figure inserted in the standard was generally based on results given after using the ISO/R 763 method and agreed that this question needed to be examined again by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling. The delegation of Poland mentioned a document they had prepared on all methods of analysis (water, salt, sugars, etc.) for edible fungi. The Commission agreed that this document should be sent by the Secretariat to governments for comments and that the methods proposed should be examined by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling at its sixth session for endorsement. The Commission was informed that a method for the determination of washed drained weight had been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling at its fourth session for edible fungi in sauce packs or in oil. This provision appeared in the standard for canned mushrooms being developed by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables. The Commission decided to delete this provision from the general standard. It was pointed out by the delegation of Belgium that this method, based on washing with cold water, might be better replaced by a method using a solvent of oils. The Commission agreed that this question should be considered again by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling at its seventh session together with the document prepared by the delegation of Poland.
Advancement of Standard to Step 9
91. The Commission agreed to advance the General Standard for Edible Fungi and Fungus Products to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
92. The Commission considered the Standard for Dried Edible Fungi which was contained in Appendix III of ALINORM 70/19 and agreed on the following amendments to the standard:
| III.2. | End Product | ||
| As a result of the decisions on the moisture content of dried fungi in the General Standard, consequential amendments should be made regarding moisture content for dried fungi in the standard. | |||
| III.3. | Permitted Defects and Tolerances | ||
| 3.1 | (a) | To the words “a total of 25% by weight” the words “except for water content” should be added. | |
| (b) | The provisions on mineral impurities and organic impurities of vegetable origin should be in accordance with the provisions agreed upon in the General Standard. | ||
| (c) | In the French version of the standard “maggot damaged fungi” should be translated as “champignons vermiculés”. | ||
| VI.2. | List of Ingredients | ||
| VI.6. | Delete this provision. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling that there was no need for a list of in- gredients in this standard. Official Control Stamp | ||
| Delete this provision. The Commission agreed that as the provision headed “Official Control Stamp” was optional, it was covered by section 6.1 of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. | |||
Advancement of Standard to Step 9
93. The Commission agreed to advance the Standard for Dried Edible Fungi to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
94. The Commission considered the above standard which was contained in Appendix IV of ALINORM 70/19 and agreed on the following amendments to the standard:
| II.1.4. | “Maggot damaged fungi”. The provision should be amended to bring it into line with the provision agreed upon in the General Standard with respect to maggot damaged fungi. |
| VI.1. | The Name of the Food |
| This provision should read as follows: “The product shall be designated both ‘chanterelle’ and ‘Cantharellus cibarius’.” | |
| VI.5. | Official Control Stamp |
| Delete this provision. |
Advancement of Standard to Step 9
95. The Commission agreed to advance the European Regional Standard for Fresh Fungus Chanterelle to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Regional Codex Standards.
96. The Commission expressed its appreciation of the excellent work done by the delegation of Poland and in particular Mr. Orlowski in the preparation of these three standards and in presenting them to the Commission. The Commission considered that it would be useful if a system of ‘rapporteurs’ could be applied in future to other standards coming before the Commission at Step 8 and asked the Executive Committee to consider what might be done in this regard.
97. The Committee had before it the above standard which was contained in Appendix V of ALINORM 70/19.
98. At the Seventh Session of the Coordinating Committee for Europe the reference to “properties favourable to health” and “favourable physiological properties” in the definition of natural mineral waters proved, once again, to be a controversial subject. While the Coordinating Committee had recognized that such claims might be practicable on a national level, there was considerable doubt as to the validity of such claims on an international level. The Coordinating Committee for Europe had concluded that the Commission would require objective criteria substantiated by scientific evidence for any claims regarding properties favourable to health in order to evaluate the validity of such claims on an international level. The Coordinating Committee had been informed by a number of delegations that in their countries the competent national authorities had verified and sanctioned such claims. The Committee had requested the Secretariat, when issuing the report of the session of the Committee, to draw these matters to the attention of Member Governments. The Committee had further requested that those countries in which the national authorities had recognized specific natural mineral waters as having properties favourable to health should make available to the Commission the criteria on which such recognition had been given. In the meantime, the Committee had decided to make no change in the definition of natural mineral waters.
99. The Commission was informed by the Secretariat that none of the countries which had recognized specific natural mineral waters as having properties favourable to health had forwarded the criteria on the basis of which such recognition had been given.
100. The Commission also had before its a Secretariat note on the question of claims in respect of properties favourable to health. The Secretariat indicated that the views set out in the Secretariat note were those of FAO and WHO.
101. FAO and, in particular, WHO had questioned the validity of such claims on an international level and had given reasons for questioning such claims. The text of the Secretariat note, containing the views of FAO and WHO, was set out in document ALINORM 70/41.
102. The Commission noted that as Codex standards were published under the aegis of FAO and WHO, both FAO and WHO considered that they had an obligation to draw the attention of Member Governments to any provisions in any standard which the Organizations might find difficult to support or justify.
103. After a full exchange of views, the Commission agreed unanimously that the standard was not ready to be forwarded to Step 9. The Commission considered that no further progress could be made with the standard until those countries which had recognized specific natural mineral waters as having properties favourable to health were in a position to make available the criteria on which such recognition had been given. As soon as such criteria were sent to the Secretariat by the governments concerned, the Secretariat should prepare a paper containing (i) the criteria mentioned above, (ii) the Step 8 comments of governments on the standard, and (iii) the remarks of the Fifth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling. The Commission also agreed that medical opinion on claims would be required when the question was further discussed. The paper when prepared should be sent to governments for comment. When the comments had been received and summarized, the papers should be put before the Coordinating Committee for Europe for further consideration of the Standard at Step 7. It would be necessary for all the papers to be prepared and in the hands of Member Countries before the matter was further considered by the Coordinating Committee. The Commission agreed that the main point at issue was the definition of natural mineral waters. One delegation suggested that the definition of “mineral waters” should be carefully considered, because many countries which had not furnished comments might have waters that could be classified as “mineral waters”, and which were consumed for health, religious and other reasons.
104. The Commission considered the above standard which had been elaborated by the Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on the Standardization of Quick-Frozen Foods. The standard was contained in Appendix III of ALINORM 70/25. The following amendments to the text were agreed to:
1. SCOPE
In the second sentence the words “labelled as intended” were replaced by the words “indicated as intended”, to reflect accurately the decision of the Group of Experts.
2. DESCRIPTION
2.1 Product and process definition
Sub-paragraph 2.1(b) - The Commission agreed to alter the text as follows:
In the first sentence “an” was deleted.
So as to make it absolutely clear that only quickfrozen peas may be thawed and then re-packed, the last sentence was amended to read:
“The recognized practice of thawing and repacking quick-frozen products under controlled conditions followed by the reapplication of the quick-freezing process as defined is permitted.”
The Commission agreed that there should be a reference either by way of a footnote to the standard or by way of a note in the introductory section of the standard to the code of practice being developed by the Joint ECE/Codex Group of Experts on the Standardization of Quick-Frozen Foods, indicating that more precise data regarding transport, storage and distribution would be drawn up in due course in that code. A number of delegations were not in agreement with this and thought that no reference should be made to a code either as a footnote to the standard or in the introductory section of the publication containing the standard. It was pointed out that the reference to the code would not form part of the provisions of the standard and would be for information purposes only.
2.2 Presentation
Sub-paragraph 2.2.1(b) - It was agreed that it would be useful to add a Latin American variety to the two examples of types of garden pea given in this section. In the Spanish version of the standard the word “arvejas” should be added after “guisantes”.
Sub-paragraph 2.2.2(b) (see also 3.3.3) - The Commission agreed to adopt the following text:
“If peas are size graded, they shall conform to one of the two following systems of specifications for the size names”.
While some delegates considered it desirable to make the size grades exclusive, whereby, with certain tolerances both downward and upward, the majority of the peas in a pack would have to be of the declared size, the Commission, after a full discussion, finally considered this unnecessary because of the self-regulating influence of the commercial value of the various size grades of the product on packing practices. It was noted that in the standard no mention was made of a method of control for the size of grading.
3. ESSENTIAL COMPOSITION AND QUALITY FACTORS
3.1 Optional ingredients
The delegation of Poland was of the opinion that sugar should not be an optional ingredient. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany was opposed to the addition of sugar in any quantity. No change was made in this section of the standard.
3.2 Quality factors
3.2.1 Organoleptic and other characteristics
In the fifth item the words after “practically free from . . . .” were deleted so that the altered sentence reads: “practically free from foreign matter”.
3.2.2 Analytical characteristics
A number of delegations considered thẹ limit set for alcohol-insoluble solids for garden peas at 19% m/m was too high. However, taking into consideration the effect of different climatic conditions and different quality requirements, the Commission decided not to reduce the limit.
3.3 Tolerances
3.3.2 Specification of defects
The delegation of Argentina expressed the view that in relation to “tolerances” the figures should read:
| (b) Blemished peas | 2% m/m |
| (c) Pea fragments | 5% m/m |
The majority of the Commission did not share this opinion, and no amendment was made to this section.
3.3.3 Tolerances for sizes (see also 2.2.2(b))
The Commission agreed to alter the text of this section to read:
“If size graded, the product shall contain at least 80% either by number or mass of peas of the declared size or of smaller sizes. It shall contain no peas of sizes larger than the next two larger sizes nor more than 20%, either by number or mass, of peas of the next two larger sizes, if such there be. Not more than one quarter of these peas either by number or mass, shall belong to the larger of the next two sizes.
5. CONTAMINANTS
The Commission decided to delete this section.
7.1 The name of the food
Taking into account the suggestion of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling at their fifth session, the above paragraph was re-edited in order to restrict the names to the designations given:
“The name of the product shall only include:
The designation “peas”, except that where peas are presented in conformity with 2.2.1(b) the designation shall be “garden peas” or the equivalent designation used in the country in which the product is intended to be sold. The words “quick-frozen” shall also appear on the label, except that the term “frozen” may be applied in countries where this term is customarily used for describing the product processed in accordance with sub-section 2.1(b) of this standard.
Where a characterizing flavouring or ingredient has been added, this shall be stated as “with X”, as appropriate.
Where a statement of size is made, either the sieve size or the words “extra small”, “very small”, “small”, “medium” or “large”, as appropriate shall be indicated.
The Commission noted that in the French version of the standard the use of terms other than “surgelé” would not be permitted. The delegations of Australia, Canada, and the U.S.A. stated that the use of the term “frozen” should be permitted in the standard designating the product. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany considered that a positive declaration of sugar as part of the name should be required in all cases where sugar was added to the product. It was pointed out that paragraph 7.1(b) would require the declaration of sugar, if it was regarded in a particular country as a “characteristic flavouring or ingredient”.
7.6 Additional provisions
The Commission deleted the sub-paragraphs (a) and (c), so that the paragraph now reads:
“The following additional specific provision applies to retail packs:
there shall be information for keeping and thawing of the product.”
The delegation of Denmark, supported by a number of other delegations expressed its view that date-marking should be mandatory.
8. PACKAGING
Sub-paragraph 8(c) - The Commission agreed to add after the word “leakage” the words “as far as technologically practicable”.
Sub-paragraph 8(d) - in the French version of the standard the word “foreign” should be translated as “anormale”.
9. METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND SAMPLING
The Commission agreed to a general method of net weight determination in quick-frozen fruits and vegetables which had been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling at its fifth session. The Commission was informed that this Committee had not considered thawing and cooking procedures as methods of analysis in the true sense needing endorsement and had referred them back to the Group of Experts with minor editorial amendments. The Commission agreed to the method for the determination of alcohol insoluble solids, noting however that it would be desirable for this method to be tested collaboratively at the levels prescribed in the standard (19–23%). In the light of the results obtained the method could be re-examined by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling in due course. The Commission was informed that no method had been proposed for the determination of sizing of quick-frozen peas and that standard laboratory sieves (e.g. ISO scale) conforming with the specifications in para. 2.2.2 did not appear to be available. The Commission agreed that no referee method was needed at this stage and that, should such a method be developed, this could be included in the Code of Practice for Quick-Frozen Foods to be elaborated by the Joint ECE/Codex Group of Experts on Quick-Frozen Foods.
105. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that in German “peas” and “garden peas” would be translated as “Palerbsen” and “Markerbsen”, respectively.
Advancement of Standard to Step 9
106. The Commission agreed to advance the Standard for QuickFrozen Peas to Step 9 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
107. The Commission had before it the above draft standards which were contained in Appendices II to VI of ALINORM 70/14.
108. The Commission noted that the volume of government comments on the draft standards was very extensive and that a considerable number of the comments were on points of substance which had proved to be controversial in the Group of Experts and on which the Group of Experts had not reached a consensus of opinion. The Commission also noted a number of inconsistencies in the labelling provisions of some of the draft standards to which the Codex Committee on Food Labelling had drawn attention. In these circumstances, the Commission decided that the draft standards were not ready for advancement to Step 9, and agreed to proceed in accordance with the following proposals which had been put forward by the delegation of the United Kingdom:
The draft standards should be returned to the ECE/Codex Group of Experts on Fruit Juices for consideration at Step 7 and the Group of Experts should return them to the Commission for consideration at Step 8 if, in the opinion of the Group, they were ready for advancement to Step 9. The Group should, in any event, present a full report to the next session of the Commission on the specific points set out below.
The Group should be instructed to take particular note of the following observations and to report on them to the Commission and on any other matters, as appropriate. In considering the draft standards, the Group should also take into account the government comments at Step 8 (ALINORM 70/41 and Addenda), the decisions of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling at its fifth session (ALINORM 70/22, paragraphs 14–16 etc.) and of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling at its fifth session (ALINORM 70/23, paragraphs 19–47).
The Group should take into account the following points made by the Commission:
The labelling provisions should be consistent and reasons should be given in full for any proposed differences. Particular points on labelling are:
the need for a declaration of ingredients;
the name of the unsweetened and “natural” products and the inclusion in the name of the sweetened products, or elsewhere on the label, of a reference to “sweetened” or to the kind of sweetening;
the declaration of added water;
the description of products made from concentrates.
The addition of sugars to the juices should be reexamined. Particular points are:
should the addition of sugars be allowed without restriction, with a limit or not allowed at all;
what is the effect of added sugar on analysis and enforcement;
what is the effect on labelling.
Given the natural variations in the raw materials, the practices of blending juices and the use of adding concentrate, are products reconstituted from a concentrate different from other products and, if so, how different; can the difference be detected on the endproduct and is there a need for a labelling declaration, or can inspection of manufacturing facilities and knowledge of import practices be relied upon to control reconstitution?
Should the standards be expressed on fruit solids or on total soluble solids; what should the levels be; how would they be expressed (see Methods of Analysis Report, paragraphs 22 and 41) and how would they be enforced?
The sampling provisions should be reconsidered in the light of decisions reached by the Commission (see paragraphs 122–125 of the Report of the Seventh Session).
The question of separate standards as mentioned in the U.S.A. Step 8 comments (ALINORM 70/41, pages 23 and 35) should be examined, provided that a working paper by the U.S.A. is distributed in time for it to be considered before the meeting of the Group.”
109. The Commission examined a number of tolerances, temporary tolerances and practical residue limits contained in Appendix IV of ALINORM 70/24.
110. A number of delegations considered that the proposed tolerance of 110 ppm was too high and that it should be reduced to 70 ppm. Other delegations pointed out that the proposed limit should not be reduced since it was necessary if diphenyl was to be used to protect citrus fruit during transit over long distances. It was also pointed out that levels of diphenyl tended to decrease on storage and that there was no evidence of hazard to health at levels of 110 ppm. The Committee agreed to advance the tolerance of 110 ppm of diphenyl to Step 9 of the Procedure while noting that a large number of delegations were in favour of a limit of 70 ppm.
111. The delegation of the U.S.A. pointed out that meat from 13 countries imported in the U.S.A. had been found in certain cases to contain pesticide residues of up to 0.3 ppm on a fat basis. The delegation of the U.S.A. also stated that, although few lots were detected in excess of 0.2 ppm, the economic waste of destroying meat containing between 0.2 and 0.3 ppm would not be justified. The delegation of the Netherlands said that a similar survey in his country had shown no residues above 0.1 ppm. The Commission agreed that this practical residue limit should be returned to Step 7 of the Procedure so that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues could give further study to the evidence mentioned by the delegations of the United States and the Netherlands.
112. The Commission agreed to omit the residue limit for whole milk and to amend the practical residue limit for milk products to read “milk and milk products: 0.125 on a fat basis”. The delegation of the United Kingdom raised the question whether it was necessary to express the limit to three significant figures. The Commission decided not to amend the residue limit but to draw the point to the attention of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.
113. The Commission agreed to advance the temporary tolerances and practical residue limits for heptachlor, with the amendments set out above, to Step 9 of the Procedure.
114. The Commission agreed to advance the tolerance of 0.1 ppm of hydrogen phosphide in raw cereals to Step 9 of the Procedure.
115. The delegation of the Netherlands pointed out that there was evidence that the breakdown of the organic brominated fumigants to inorganic bromide was often not complete. It would be prudent to return all tolerances above 50 ppm to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues for further study. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany supported this view. A number of delegations pointed out that the limits above 50 ppm, expressed as inorganic bromide, were in foods which were consumed in relatively small amounts, that it was necessary to allow for residues naturally present in some foods, and that there was a high acceptable daily intake for inorganic bromide. Furthermore, the tolerances were temporary and were scheduled for review in 1970/71 by the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues.
116. The Commission agreed to advance the temporary tolerances for inorganic bromide to Step 9 of the Procedure.
117. The Commission agreed to advance the temporary tolerances for piperonyl butoxide to Step 9 of the Procedure.
118. The Commission agreed to advance the temporary tolerances for pyrethrins to Step 9 of the Procedure.
119. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany drew attention to the fact that the rather large differences in legal tolerances in different countries might be explained by different systems of official control. They therefore suggested that all Codex tolerances should be reviewed when the subject became more clearly understood.
120. The Commission agreed that a statement should be included in the introduction to pesticide residue tolerances and limits sent out for acceptance at Step 9, pointing out that they were of a temporary nature and would be subject to review by the Commission.
121. The delegation of Cuba expressed concern that the consideration of methods of analysis to verify the limits for pesticide residues was being left in abeyance year after year. The delegation of India stated that unless suitable methods of analysis were elaborated, the tolerances recommended by the Commission would not have practical application to food control. The Secretariat pointed out that, wherever possible, the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues recommended suitable methods of analysis for the determination of pesticide residues. The delegation of India outlined the results of a study which had been made in 1968 on the effects of low and high dietary protein levels on the toxicity of pesticide residues. The Secretariat drew the Commission's attention to the fact that a Group of Experts convened by WHO in 1966 had studied the toxicity of pesticide residues in relation to malnutrition.
