(CX 5/70 - 12th S.)
197. The Commission had before it the above report together with document ALINORM 70/21 (A) which indicated the present status of work and summarized the results of the Twelfth Session of the Joint FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products.
198. The Commission reviewed several aspects of the work of the Committee, in particular the problems connected with the establishment of a multiplicity of individual cheese standards, the redrafting of compositional standards in the Codex format, and the draft standards for processed cheese products. Some delegations expressed the view that the classification of cheese varieties into broad groups might help to overcome the difficulties encountered in establishing too great a number of individual cheese standards for similar varieties.
199. The question was raised whether the Milk and Milk Products Committee in establishing standards took account of the criteria for the establishment of standards which had been laid down by the Commission. It was pointed out that all Committees had been informed of these criteria.
200. The delegation of Ghana drew attention to the importance which was attached to nutritional questions concerning skimmed milk with added vegetable fat (filled milk) and imitation milk in the developing countries of Africa.
201. The Commission had before it a paper prepared by the Secretariat setting out the replies of governments to the specific questions posed by the Commission at its Sixth Session in connection with the Milk and Milk Products Committee's redraft of the governing paragraph. The Commission also had before it the Report of the Fifteenth Session of the Executive Committee containing the recommendations of the Executive Committee on the subject. The Commission noted the comment of the Executive Committee that much of the apparent divergence of views expressed in the replies to the questions posed was due to the different interpretations of the words used in the governing paragraph.
202. The Commission had a full exchange of views on the points at issue and heard a statement from Dr. Ballester (Spain), in his capacity as First Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Milk and Milk Products, in which he explained the Milk Committee's reasons for wishing to retain the text as redrafted by that Committee. Some delegations expressed the view that it would be premature to make a change in the method of accepting standards for milk and milk products until such time as practical experience had been obtained of the Codex methods of acceptance. The delegation of Denmark was of the opinion that the question of changing the method of acceptance should have been submitted to governments for their comments before the Commission took a decision. The delegation of Denmark was somewhat concerned about the possible effect on the standards already adopted for milk and milk products if the Codex acceptance methods were to be fully extended to these standards.
203. There was general agreement that the opening sentence of the Milk Committee's redraft was satisfactory. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Executive Committee that the governing paragraph should not state that the Committee had full competence, since many of its decisions were subject to endorsement by Codex Subject Committees. The Commission also agreed that the governing paragraph should not state that only final decisions of the Milk Committee were subject to review by the Commission, since the Commission had the right to review any decision of any of its subsidiary bodies. In agreeing to delete the reference to final decisions, the Commission noted that it would not normally expect decisions of the Milk Committee to be reviewed by the Commission and that, in all probability, such review by the Commission would, in practice, concern standards which had been finalized by the Committee. The Commission agreed that the points of substance at issue were (a) should it be the function of the Commission or the Committee to deal with acceptanoes of milk product standards, (b) should the procedure for the acceptance of milk product standards be the same as that for standards for other products, and (c) if the Codex acceptance procedure were to apply to standards for milk products, should the procedure come into operation immediately or at a later stage.
204. The Commission agreed that the Committee should consider acceptance of milk product standards in the light of the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius and that the Committee should report on them to the Commission. The Commission agreed that it would then be a matter for the Commission to decide, in the light of these acceptances, whether the standard concerned should be published in the Codex Alimentarius as a world-wide standard.
205. The Commission agreed that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues should continue to deal with pesticide residues in milk and milk products.
206. The following amended version of the governing paragraph was agreed to by the Commission:
“The Commission decided that the FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products would be considered as a Committee under Rule IX.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure. The Committee would be competent to consider and elaborate all codes and standards concerning milk and milk products, and pass them, as appropriate, through all the steps of the Procedure for the Elaboration of International Standards for Milk Products. It would cause them to be submitted to governments for acceptance, except that decisions of the Committee, whether on standards or not, would be subject to review by the Commission at the request of a Member of the Commission. The Committee will consider the acceptances received in the light of the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius and will report on these acceptances to the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Commission will decide in the light of these acceptances whether the standard shall be published in the Codex Alimentarius as a world-wide standard. Those provisions of standards formulated by the Committee of Government Experts which relate to additives, labelling and hygiene would be subject to the procedure for endorsement by the appropriate Codex General Subject Committees as laid down in paragraph 13 of the Guidelines for Codex Committees (Procedural Manual, Second Edition, PP. 54, 55 and 57). Methods of analysis and sampling formulated by the Committee of Government Experts would not, however, be subject to endorsement by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.”
207. The delegation of New Zealand indicated that it was in agreement with the amended version of the governing paragraph, but considered that in applying the Codex acceptance procedures to standards for milk and milk products, the only minor deviations that should be allowed were those of a more stringent nature. The delegation of Denmark supported the New Zealand delegation's view of the application of the Codex acceptance procedures. The Commission considered that its amendment to the governing paragraph involved an amendment to Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Milk and Milk Product Standards and the inclusion of a new Step 9. The Commission agreed the following amended text for Step 8 of the Procedure and the following text for a new Step 9:
“Step 8:
The recommended standard is published as a standard in the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products when the Committee determines that it is appropriate to do so in the light of the açceptances received.”
“Step 9:
The recommended standard is published as a standard in the Codex Alimentarius when the Codex Alimentarius Commission determines that it is appropriate to do so in the light of the acceptances received.”
The Commission agreed that the changes which it had made in the governing paragraph and the Procedure for the Elaboration of Standards did not in any way affect the status of the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products, nor acceptances of the Code. The Commission did not regard the Code as being in the nature of a standard.
208. The Commission had before it a paper prepared by the Secretariat (ALINORM 70/34) dealing with international trade in and national legislation on edible ices. The paper indicated that there was not a very substantial international trade in these products but that there was a significant trade in them at the European regional level. The delegation of Sweden reiterated its readiness to take responsibility for a Committee on the subject. The Commission noted that the Milk and Milk Products Committee, which was already developing a standard for edible ices based on milk fat, had indicated its willingness to develop also standards for edible ices based on non-milk fat, and that the coordinating Committee for Europe was willing to undertake the task of elaborating standards for edible ices on a European regional basis. The opinions expressed by various delegations reflected different views as to which body might eventually be best suited to elaborate standards for edible ices.
209. A number of delegations expressed doubts whether the product was one that justified urgent attention in view of the Commission's workload and the more important questions which required its attention. Other delegations considered that this was a product which could easily be made the subject of standardization, at least on a regional basis.
210. The Commission agreed that:
there was no need at the present to proceed with the elaboration of standards on a world-wide basis;
the delegation of Sweden should be requested to prepare a proposed draft standard and reproduce it in the Codex format, taking account of government comments, the summary of national legislation (ALINORM 70/34) and the views expressed in the Commission;
the Committee on Milk and Milk Products should be instructed to cease work on milk ices;
the Swedish paper should, when completed, be sent to the Secretariat for transmission to the Coordinating Committee for Europe to consider and advise the Commission whether it would be profitable to proceed with the draft standard as a European regional standard.
The delegation of Denmark objected to the decision at (3) above.
