Introduction
1. The Executive Committee held its Fifteenth Session at FAO Headquarters, Rome, on 3 April 1970. The Committee was presided over by the Chairman of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Mr. J.H.V. Davies (United Kingdom), and in the presence of the three ViceChairmen, Mr. I.H. Smith (Australia), Mr. E. Mortensen (Denmark) and Professor Dr. O. Hogl (Switzerland). The following representatives from the geographic locations mentioned were present: for Africa, Dr. N.A. de Heer from Ghana; for Asia, Mr. K. Ando from Japan; for Europe, Mr. J. Serwatowski from Poland; for Latin America, Ing. J.H. Piazzi from Argentina; for North America, Mr. G.R. Grange from the U.S.A.; for South-West Pacific, Mr. E.J. Stonyer from New Zealand. The Coordinator for Europe, Dr. R. Wildner (Austria) was also present. The Secretariat consisted of Dr. C. Agthe and Dr. S. Shubber (WHO), and Mr. G. O. Kermode and Mr. H. J. McNally (FAO).
Adoption of the Agenda
2. The Committee adopted the Provisional agenda.
Rule XII.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission
3. The Executive Committee had before it document ALINORM 70/8-Part I and Addendum I, which had been prepared by the Secretariat and which dealt with Rule XII of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. The Executive Committee decided to consider first the section of the paper relating to the proposal made by the Argentine delegation at the Sixth Session of the Commission that Rule XII 3 be amended so that English, French and Spanish would be Mandatory working languages in subsidiary bodies of the Commission set up under Rule IX.1 (b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. The Executive Committee noted that countries hosting Codex Committees had, in general, indicated that, while they appreciated the desire of the Spanish-speaking countries to have Spanish provided as a third working language in Codex Committees, there were both financial and practical difficulties in the way of undertaking an obligation to provide full facilities in the three languages. It was pointed out that it should not be taken as axiomatic that all Codex Committees would always select English and French as the languages in which they would work. In general, host countries had said they would find great difficulty in meeting the additional financial burdens of providing a third language. There were also considerable practical difficulties, particularly for those countries where the mother tongue was not one of the languages of the Commission.
4. It seemed clear therefore that, in view of the replies of host governments, the only means of implementing the proposal of the Argentine delegation would be for funds to be made available out of the budget of the Commission. This would require a considerable increase in the budget and the Executive Committee did not think it would be right to recommend such an increase at the present time.
5. The representative of Latin America did not think that the arguments put forward by the host governments were convincing and restated the arguments in favour of the use of Spanish as set out in paragraph 7 of ALINOLRM 70/8-Part I. He considered that there could never be full participation in the work of the Commission by Spanish-speaking countries unless all the working documents, simultaneous interpretation and the draft reports of Codex Committees were provided in Spanish. Most of the Spanish-speaking countries were developing and the provision of Spanish could be regarded as in the nature of assistance in the field of food standards to the developing countries by the developed countries. He considered that an amendment to Rule XII.3 to make Spanish mandatory in all Codex Committees was essential. He did not, however, think that such a provision was essential in respect of Coordinating Committees.
6. The Executive Committee decided that, in view of the attitude of host governments and the financial implications, it could not recommend to the Commission an amendment to Rule XII.3. The Executive Committee, however, reiterated its view on the importance of Spanish for the work of the Commission and urged host governments to make every effort to provide for Spanish in Committes for which they were responsible. The Executive Committee thought that it might be useful if the Directors-General of FAO and WHO were to write to host governments stressing the particular importance of at least providing simultaneous interpretation in the three languages of the Commission. It was noted that the cost of providing simultaneous interpretation and facilities for the translation of the draft report into Spanish at a Codex Committee session would be of the order of $ 2,000 and that therefore the cost of providing simultaneous interpretation only would be somewhat less than this figure. The Executive Committee also thought that the Spanish-speaking countries should write to the Secretariat indicating the relative importance which they attached to the following:
7. The Executive Committee also considered that the Directors-General should consider doing what they could to provide as many working documents as possible in Spanish for Codex Committee sessions.
Rule XII
8. The Executive Committee considered the section of document ALINORM 70/8-Part I, which dealt in particular with Rule XII.1. Having noted the reasons advanced by the Secretariat for amending this Rule, The Executive Committee considered the amended version of the Rule proposed by the Secretariat. The Executive Committee considered that the text was not entirely satisfactory and agreed to a number of amendements; it agreed to recommend the following version of the Rule to the Commission for adoption:
The languages of the Commission and of its subsidiary bodies set up under Rule IX.1(a) shall be not less than three of the working languages, as shall be determined by the Commission, which are working languages both of FAO and of the Health Assembly of WHO.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 above, other languages which are working languages either of FAO or of the Health Assembly of WHO may be added by the Commission if
the Commission has before it a report from the Directors-General of FAO and WHO on the policy, financial and administrative implications of the addition of such languages; and
the addition of such languages has the approval of the Directors-General of FAO and WHO.”
9. As a consequence of the proposal to amend Rule XII.1, in the way indicated above, the Executive Committee agreed to recommend to the Commission for adoption the following amended versions of Rule XII.2 and Rule XII.3, which will become Rule XII.3 and Rule XII.4 respectively:
“Rule XII.3
Where a representative wishes to use [another] a language other than a language of the Commission he shall himself provide the necessary interpretation and/or translation into one of the [working] languages of the Commission.”
“Rule XII.4
Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 3 [2] of this Rule, the [working] languages of subsidiary bodies set up under Rule IX.1 (b) shall include at least two of the [working] languages of the Commission.”
Rule VI.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission
10. The Executive Committee took note of the contents of document ALINORM 70/8-Part II, which had been prepared by the Secretariat as a consequence of a suggestion put forward by the 15th Session of the FAO Conference that the “Codex Alimentarius Commission should re-examine, at its next session, the principles governing the elaboration of standards for regions or groups of countries, as reflected in Rule VI.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.”
11. While the Executive Committee thought that the report of the Conference was not entirely clear as to what principles underlying Rule VI.3 were to be examined, it noted that the Member Country which had raised this question in the Conference, was specifically concerned with ensuring that the Commission should “remain fully master of its work programme”. The Executive Committee recalled that a proposal put by it to the last session of the Commission which would have had the effect of requiring the approval of the majority of all the Member Countries of the Commission before a regional standard was elaborated, had failed to gain the required two-thirds majority in the Commission. The Executive Committee also recognized that there were legitimate differences of opinion on this question and further that no additional regional standards were presently contemplated by the Commission. The possibility of inadequately considered proposals for regional standards had been greatly reduced by the introduction by the Commission of strict criteria which had to be fulfilled before a standard could be elaborated. In the light of the foregoing, the Executive Committee thought that no useful purpose would be served in reconsidering Rule VI.3 at the 7th session of the Commission and took the view that any reconsideration of this Rule should await further developments.
Governing Paragraph for the FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products and relationship between the Commission and the Committee
12. The Executive Committee had before it documents ALINORM 70/9 and Addenda 1 and 2, containing 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 representative of North America conveyed to the Executive Committee the reply of Canada to the questions posed. The written reply of Canada had not been received by the Secretariat.
13. The replies revealed that there was a considerable divergence of opinion between governments on the points raised in the questions posed. The Executive Committee considered that much of the apparent divergence of views was due to the different interpretations of the words used in the governing paragraph. Mr. Mortensen pointed out that there might be differences between the milk standards and other Codex standards because the milk standards had been deliberately drafted as minimum standards; he thought that this was a point which required investigation.
14. The Executive Committee unanimously agreed to recommend to the Commission that (a) the governing paragraph should not state that the Milk and Milk Products Committee had full competence, since many of its decisions were subject to endorsement by Codex General Subject Committees; (b) the governing paragraph should not state that only final decisions of the Milk and Milk Products Committee were subject to review by the Commission, since the Commission had the right to review any decision of any of its subsidiary bodies.
15. The Executive Committee was unanimously of the view that the acceptance procedure for milk product standards should be brought into line with that for other Codex standards. Some Members of the Executive Committee thought that steps to this end should be taken immediately, while others thought that it would be more advisable to deal with this matter at a later stage. The Executive Committee agreed that the integration of the acceptance procedure under the Code into the Codex acceptance procedure should not apply to standards already sent out for acceptance by the Milk and Milk Products Committee unless these standards were substantially amended after the time of integration.
Proposed Amendment to the Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene
16. The Executive Committee agreed to recommend to the Commission the adoption of the following addition to the terms of reference of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, as proposed by the Secretariat:
“The Committee may refer, where necessary, specific food hygiene problems, including, in particular, microbiological methodology and sampling, for consideration to FAO and/or WHO, to bodies set up by them and to other organizations recognized by FAO and WHO to be appropriate in respect of such reference.”
Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues
17. The representative of North America pointed out that ALINORM 70/21 did not contain any reference to the question of setting up a sub-committee of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues though this would need to be considered by the Commission. Mr. Smith pointed out that the question of what constituted a sub-committee under paragraph 8 of the Guidelines was not an easy one and it might be that this paragraph needed clarification.
18. The Executive Committee agreed that the question of a subcommittee under the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (paras. 26–27 of ALINORM 70/24) would need to be discussed at the Seventh Session of the Commission. It asked the Secretariat to consider whether any clarification of paragraph 8 of the Guidelines was required and to submit a paper on this matter to the next session of the Executive Committee including, if that seemed desirable, a draft amendment to the paragraph.
Other business
19. The representative of North America was of the opinion that clarification was needed of the Commission's view concerning provisions in Codex standards which were not enforceable by examination of the end product. The Executive Committee recalled an interpretation by the Commission at its 5th session (paras. 26–27, ALINORM 68/35) of the meaning of quality criteria, according to which Codex standards could include provisions on the quality of the raw material used. The Executive Committee agreed that wherever possible, verifiable and product specifications were preferable, but that Codex standards could contain provisions such as those relating to conditions of manufacture and raw materials used, which cannot be determined by the examination of the end product. The Executive Committee also agreed that this principle applied equally to aspects of Codex standards other than quality criteria.
