42. The Commission had before it document ALINORM 81/6 which contained three sections, Section A. - Joint FAO/WHO Activities, Section B. - Report on FAO Activities and Section C. - Report on WHO Activities.
Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues and the Environment
and the WHO Expert Group on Pesticide Residues (JMPR)
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)
Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated Food (JECFI)
43. The WHO Joint Secretary of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), of the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) and of the Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated Food (JECFI) briefly introduced the reports of these committees. These meetings had all been held in 1980. In highlighting some of the conclusions reached by these committees, he called the attention of the Commission to the most significant conclusions reached by JECFI which was that irradiation of any food commodity up to an average dose of 10 kGy should not present a toxicological hazard to the consumer and that, consequently, no toxicological testing should be required when clearing foods treated by irradiation up to this average dose.
44. Similarly, while the Committee had concurred that irradiation up to 10 kGy should not introduce special nutritional or microbiological problems, it recommended that attention should be given to the significance of any changes in relation to each particular irradiated food and to its role in the diet; this implied that in clearing foods treated by irradiation up to this average dose, proof should still be required to ensure that, in each case, no microbiological and nutritional changes were introduced by the process of irradiation and that populations consuming diets containing irradiated foods should be monitored for nutritional adequacy.
45. These recommendations were formulated by the Committee after examining many toxicological studies carried out on a large number of individual foods and radiation chemistry studies on the nature and concentration of radiolytic products of major food components. Supporting evidence was provided by the absence of any adverse effects resulting from feeding of irradiated diets to laboratory animals, the use of irradiated foods in livestock production, and the practice of maintaining immunologically incompetent patients on irradiated diets.
46. A number of delegations spoke on the question of the significance of the irradiation process for treating tropical products and to the importance of its correct use including the development of analytical methods to test for overdosing. The Delegation of Norway asked for a clarification regarding labelling requirements for foods treated by the process of irradiation. The WHO Joint Secretary explained that the Committee in this regard understood that irradiated foods would be subject to regulations covering foods generally, and to any specific food standards relating to individual foods; it was therefore not thought necessary on scientific grounds to envisage special requirements for the quality, wholesomeness and labelling of irradiated foods.
Joint FAO/WHO Food and Animal Feed Contamination Monitoring Programme
47. The programme was started in 1976 to implement a recommendation by the UN Conference on the Human Environment. Two phases of the programme had been almost completed.
The initial phase had been devoted to identifying national centres carrying out monitoring programmes and to surveying the contaminants, foods and methods being used for monitoring. The activities in the second phase were devoted to developing detailed plans, designating collaborating centres and collecting monitoring data. To date, 21 Collaborating Centres had been designated and the designation of centres in four additional countries had been initiated.
48. Monitoring data had been received by WHO from the Collaborating Centres, and a draft Summary Report containing all these data, together with their evaluation, had been reviewed by the Second Technical Advisory Committee of the Programme in April 1981. The final report was expected to be published soon. The TAC had also discussed and advised FAO and WHO on how an operational phase of the programme could be implemented. Some of these recommendations are as follows:
If data were to be collected on a global basis, the participation of the developing countries was a necessity. The Committee had recognized that to expand the programme into the developing countries would require substantial resources which were not available from current project funds.
The Committee had recommended that FAO and WHO Member States, particularly developing countries, be informed of this monitoring programme. A special effort should be made to identify laboratories in developing countries which could benefit from association with the programme, even though full-scale national food contamination monitoring was not now being carried out.
The Committee was informed that many centres act as regional training laboratories and that suitable manuals were often not available in languages other than English. The Committee recommended that such training manuals should be made available as part of the programme, with special consideration given to Spanish language versions.
The Committee had recommended that analytical quality assurance studies be included as a regular part of Phase III activities and these should be organized by selected coordinating institutes to ascertain improvements in particular laboratories identified as requiring training.
The Committee had recommended that data collected in this monitoring programme be referred to appropriate expert groups for evaluation of possible health significance.
The Committee had recommended that data collected in this monitoring programme should be submitted to the appropriate Codex Committees at the earliest possible opportunity.
49. FAO activities complementary to the work of the Commission could be classified under three categories: strengthening of food control systems; food contamination monitoring and control activities; and activities relating to improvement in the food handling systems. Under food control activities assistance was provided to member countries in relation to food legislation, training of food inspectors, food analysts and food control administrators, strengthening of laboratories and development of overall integrated food control systems. In providing advice on food regulations, recommendations of the Codex Alimentarius Commission were taken into consideration. These activities also included advice on in-process quality control at the stage of food processing and on import/export inspection.
50. Under food contamination monitoring and control, assistance was provided to developing countries in carrying out food contamination studies and setting up of food contaminants monitoring and control systems. This again involved strengthening of laboratories, and training of staff formed an important component of these activities. Increasingly, greater emphasis was being placed on improvement in the food handling systems including post harvest handling and storage of foods, protection of food supplies from insect infestation, mycotoxins contamination and other matters.
51. FAO had provided in the recent past or was currently providing assistance to several countries such as Qatar, Tunisia, Algeria, Benin and Turkey in development of integrated food control systems. Such assistance covered various aspects of food control from food legislation and training to strengthening of laboratories and the inspectorate. Assistance has also been provided to a number of member countries with regard to specific problems relating to surveys of food laws/regulations, general food control set up and specific commodity or other problems of infrastructure to improve quality and safety of food supplies. In the recent past such work had been done in Malaysia, Ecuador, Malawi, Burma and would be carried out shortly in Pakistan, Peru, Ghana and Uruguay.
52. In regard to training, FAO was implementing various national projects such as those in Kuwait, Nigeria and Zimbabwe. A Regional Food Inspection Training Course for Arabicspeaking countries was being organized in collaboration with WHO/ASMO in Jordan. Training would also be shortly available under an FAO/Government of Libya Regional Food Inspection/ Applied Research Training Centre project now operational in Tripoli. At the international level reference was made to the two training courses in food contaminants control held at the Central Food Technological Research Institute in Mysore, India.
53. FAO was deeply involved in promoting technical cooperation between developing countries in the areas of food quality control and improvement of food handling practices. Technical consultations among developing countries of Asia and the Pacific, and amongst certain countries of Central America were held in Manila and Mexico, respectively. Similar TCDC was being promoted in the Caribbean region in cooperation with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). FAO would continue to utilize the regional Codex Coordinating Committees for Asia, Africa and Latin America to promote TCDC in the areas of quality and safety of foods.
54. The Commission was informed about the food contamination studies being carried out in India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka through Norwegian-financed FAO projects. A food contamination study in the Republic of Korea was being supported under the Regular Programme of FAO. At a sub-regional level reference was invited to the FAO/UNDP/African Groundnut Council Project on control of aflatoxins in groundnuts. The project was operational in six countries of the African Groundnut Council namely Nigeria, Sudan, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Gambia. Two detoxification plants were being set up, one in Senegal and the other in Sudan and the project provided for monitoring of aflatoxin levels before and after detoxification.
55. Besides project assistance, recently FAO was trying out new approaches to strengthening and development of integrated food control systems in member countries particularly those where certain basic infrastructures exist. This was being done through holding of national food quality control strategy workshops to promote inter-ministerial cooperation and coordination and bringing together the agriculture and health sectors to ensure quality and safety of food supplies for the economic development of the country as well as for consumer protection. National workshops had been held in Syria, Senegal and Mexico. Such workshops were proposed to be held in India, Egypt and Brazil.
56. The Commission was informed of the series of publications on food control which provided information on policies and strategies as well as detailed technical know-how with regard to methods of analysis, control of certain contaminants problems such as aflatoxins and food inspection. A Food Inspection Manual was likely to be issued very shortly. FAO was also providing to member countries standard reference material for analytical purposes.
57. The Commission was informed of the high priority being given within FAO to technical assistance programmes in the food control area. For member governments to be able to make use of such assistance it was necessary that the subject of quality and safety of food supplies receive a high priority within the international programmes. A reference was also made to close collaboration with WHO in these activities particularly in the development of common strategies and approaches and avoiding of duplication.
The WHO Food Safety Programme
58. The Commission was informed that most components of the WHO Food Safety Programme were, as far as Headquarters activities were concerned, undertaken jointly with the FAO. For this reason the Commission had already received reports on the health evaluation of food additives, contaminants and pesticide residues as well as a report on the Food and Animal Feed Contamination Monitoring Programme, both being components of the Food Safety Programme. Another activity of the Food Safety Programme was WHO's participation in the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme itself. WHO's primary concern within the framework of this programme was the aspect of health protection of the consumer of food. WHO was making major technical inputs in food toxicology, food microbiology and nutrition. The Regional Offices of WHO were engaged in technical cooperation activities on food safety through consultants' visits, regional and national workshops and similar projects. To-date a great deal of this work had related to foods moving in trade. WHO now intended to assist member countries to improve also the safety of foods not usually subjected to any form of control, be it for health or trade. Increased emphasis on these foods was important because millions of people, especially in developing countries, were dependent on such foods. Attention should be given to food handling at all stages, including that in the household.
59. The Food Safety Programme had been recently critically reviewed towards these ends and the conclusion was drawn by WHO that insufficient emphasis had been given to foodborne morbidity and mortality caused by contaminated foods, drinking water and personal hygiene, leading to enteric infections such as acute diarrhoea, hepatitis and other diseases, not to mention food and other economic losses. In many countries, malnutrition was the single most significant public health problem, and more important than any other disease in the aetiology of malnutrition was diarrhoea. WHO estimated that 3 to 5 million children up to the age of 5 years die annually from this disease. A solution to this problem was probably conceivable only if the primary health care approach of consumer participation was followed, which meant that the people themselves had to learn how to handle and prepare food which avoided it being rendered unsafe and causing - inter alia - diarrhoea.
60. WHO had with UNESCO laid the groundwork for activities aimed especially at schoolchildren. It was hoped the next generation would not make the same fatal mistakes as their parents still do. WHO had also already laid the groundwork for activities aimed at the training of food handlers such as cooks, hotel/restaurant managers and similar staff. It was hoped to assure, jointly with ILO, that in the industrial training of these professionals due attention would be given to food safety and the decisive role these people could play in maintaining the safety of food.
61. Finally, the Commission was assured that WHO Headquarters, together with FAO and other specialized agencies of the UN family, would in future pay more attention to these aspects of food safety, and that this would not be done at the expense of ongoing and established activities such as the health evaluation of chemicals in food, or monitoring their levels in food. The WHO Regional Offices likewise were going to pay more attention to food safety, since it was so important for achieving the goal of Health for All by the Year 2000. The Directing Council of the Pan American Health Organization/Regional Office for the Americas would hold technical discussions on sanitary control of foods in September 1981, and the Regional Offices for the Eastern Mediterranean and Africa had planned similar activities for the biennium 1982/83.
62. The Delegation of Nigeria stressed the serious implications which food-borne diseases had for developing countries where they currently ranked among the top three killers. The delegation claimed that one of the major obstacles to effective control of food-borne diseases in many of these countries could be associated with insufficient appreciation, often due to paucity of appropriate data by medical professionals in those countries, of the influence of these diseases on the total morbidity and mortality rates with particular reference to infants. It called on WHO to evolve appropriate programmes to meet this challenge. The delegation emphasized the need for data collection and evaluation as a useful strategy, since these would engender a better appreciation of the problem and provide the necessary leverage for the regulation of the food preparation and service industry in many of these countries was in the hands of persons who did not possess adequate training or facilities to guarantee the safety of their products. The delegation saw the WHO Food Safety Programme as a vital strategy for attaining the goal of “Health for All by the Year 2000” and recommended that it should be projected as such in developing countries. If, therefore, it was necessary, owing to lack of resources, to set priorities, the outlined activities should take precedence over those aimed at microbiological specifications for food.
Veterinary Public Health and Food Hygiene
63. Concerning meat hygiene, the WHO representative reported that in accordance with the Resolution WHA 31.48 on “Prevention and control of zoonoses and food-borne diseases due to animal products”, the Veterinary Public Health Programme had been considerably strengthened, and currently strategies and methods for control of selected zoonoses and food-borne diseases were being elaborated, taking into account different epidemiological situations, such as specific animal-related human health risks in urban areas, animal production on large scale in intensive farms, areas of rapid ecological changes, as well as health problems of food production, processing and distribution.
64. A worldwide network of WHO zoonoses centres was now being established to provide technical cooperation to country health programmes regarding zoonoses and related foodborne diseases. Adequate services for such technical cooperation were available in the Region for the Americas through the Pan American Zoonoses Centre. A UNDP/WHO Mediterranean Zoonoses Control Programme with the participation of FAO had begun operations in 1979, the principal centre being Athens. One of the functions of the zoonoses centres would be cooperation with Member States in planning and implementation of their national programmes for control of specific diseases.
65. WHO was paying special attention to salmonellosis as an internationally-distributed food-borne disease. The subject had been discussed at the Round Table Conference on the present status of the Salmonella problem (prevention and control) in Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 6–10 October 1980. This Conference was organized by WHO and the World Association of Veterinary Food Hygienists. Scientists from 12 countries, experts in Salmonella problems, participated and prepared interesting scientific papers. The outcome of the Conference was very fruitful. Salmonellosis is one of the diseases which is part of the new WHO Diarrhoeal Diseases Programme.
66. Taking into consideration the reorientation of the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to respond more to the needs of developing countries, the Veterinary Public Health Unit of WHO, together with FAO, was strengthening activities on meat hygiene and meat handling under austere rural conditions. The main objective was an improvement of slaughter facilities and meat hygiene where modern facilities were lacking. For the successful elaboration and further implentation of this programme, which would be part of Primary Health Care, it was planned to visit one or two African countries to select suitable areas (villages) for trials. The main components of this programme were: training, guidelines for the design and construction of slaughter facilities, and slaughter and meat handling and meat inspection.
67. A series of meetings had been held by WHO in Geneva and in the Regional Office for Europe, and the FAO/WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Food Hygiene concerning the WHO Surveillance Programme for Control of Foodborne Infections and Intoxications. The last meeting, which was convened after the First World Congress of Foodborne Infections and Intoxications, 4–6 July 1980, reviewed the amended version of the paper “Organization and Management of the WHO Surveillance Programme for Control of Foodborne Infections and Intoxications in Europe”, which contained the main objectives of the Programme and detailed information about its organization and management. This document enabled the Programme to be operational in 1980 as was originally recommended.
68. The need for more effective control over the occurrence of pathogenic microorganisms and their toxins in food was evident. Such control had to be exercised not only at the processing level but also during distribution, wholesale and retail storage and ultimate usage either in food service establishments or at home. Food safety through the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point System (HACCP) was an approach to these problems. This concept was originally developed for use in food processing establishments in the USA and had the full support of WHO. The first meeting of experts in this field was convened in Geneva, 9–11 June 1980, and they discussed the further development of the HACCP system, which included: assessment of the health and spoilage risks associated with processing and marketing a given food product; determination of Critical Control Points in the manufacturing process, and the establishment of programmes for monitoring Critical Control Points. Work on the development of the above-mentioned concepts would continue.
69. The WHO Programme on Food Virology aimed at the collection of data on the occurrence of foodborne diseases due to viruses, at the improvement of methods for isolation of viruses from various foods and at elucidating the public health significance of various species of viruses in food. The data was available and could be obtained on request.
70. There was a need for close intersectoral and professional cooperation in any of the national food control programmes. WHO was carrying out research on optimum ways for such cooperation as part of the Health Services Research Programme and results will be reported in due course.
Food Microbiology
71. In the area of microbiological specifications for foods the WHO Representative reported that this work had begun as a cooperative project with UNEP and FAO. Two FAO/WHO expert consultations had been held in Geneva (1975, 1977). Ensuing meetings (1979, 1980) were held on an ad hoc basis.
72. These working groups had considered microbiological specifications for the following: shrimps and prawns (May 1980, Bergen), dried milk and natural mineral water (October 1980, Washington). Microbiological specifications were under elaboration or had already been elaborated for the following:
73. As regards future activity, a priority list of foods which should be considered for microbiological specifications had been elaborated by the Second FAO/WHO Expert Committee (Geneva, 1977), and included ten different kinds of foods. The Commission was also informed that other foods could be added to this list by countries. However, the addition of new foods should be considered from the following points of view: evidence of hazards to health, microbiology of the raw material, effect of processing on the microbiology of the food, likelihood and consequences of microbiological contamination and/or growth during subsequent handling and storage, category of consumers at risk, and cost/benefit ratio associated with the application of the criterion.
European Food Safety Services
74. The Representative of the WHO Regional Office for Europe mentioned that a survey of food safety services in Europe has been published by that office. It gave for each country a brief outline of its food legislation, food control administration and enforcement system, and addresses where further information could be obtained. Copies were available in English and French from the WHO Regional Office for Europe, Scherfigsvej 8, DK 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
75. The Commission noted with interest all aforementioned activities being carried out by FAO and WHO, jointly or individually, on various aspects of safety and quality of food at global, regional or country level. These activities were of great significance for the work of the Commission, as several of them were providing inputs into the work of the Commission whilst other carried forward the Commission's recommendations to the stage of implementation at national level in developing countries. The Commission recommended that FAO and WHO strengthen these activities and give the training of national personnel high priority.
76. Professor M. Mercier (WHO) provided the Commission with a brief progress report on the development of this new international programme of direct interest to the Commission. Previous presentations of the IPCS had been made at the Thirteenth Session of the Commission (ALINORM 79/38) and at the Twenty-Seventh Session of the Executive Committee (ALINORM 81/3).
77. Professor Mercier briefly explained the origins of IPCS which went back to 1977, when the World Health Assembly, concerned about the increase in the extent and nature of chemical pollution over the last thirty years, requested the Director-General of the World Health Organization to study the problem of long-term strategies to control and limit the impact of chemicals on human health and the environment. He stated that the problem clearly had international dimensions, not only because of the international trade in chemicals, but also because a collaborative approach was needed for a sound and thorough evaluation of their effects. Consequently, an international collaborative approach was the only feasible way to avoid costly duplication of national efforts to test and assess chemicals, and to put scarce and valuable resources in toxicological expertise to the best possible use.
78. The World Health Assembly had specifically requested the Director-General to examine in collaboration with appropriate national institutions and international organizations, the possible options for international cooperation, including the financial and organizational implications. A programme on chemical safety was then implemented. Although the programme was initially conceived as a WHO activity, it had now become a cooperative venture of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and WHO.
79. Professor Mercier then provided the Commission with a Conference Document (Conf. Doc. LIM 4) which gave more details on the IPCS. More specifically, he dwelt upon some of the aspects directly connected with the work of the IPCS and the Commission, namely the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). Both committees were now operating from the WHO side within the framework of the IPCS. In introducing these aspects, Professor Mercier observed that it was very important to note that IPCS should not be thought of as a de novo activity but rather a strengthening and extension of existing work, that is to say that the IPCS brings together existing activities as well as initiating new ones. In this context he noted that WHO had a long and distinguished record of evaluating the safety of chemicals, food additives, pesticide residues in food and food contaminants through the activities of these two committees: JECFA, lasting for 25 years and the JMPR, in operation since 1962. These two committees were considered as advisory bodies to the Codex Alimentarius Commission, especially to the Codex Committee on Food Additives and to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (see Conf. Doc. LIM 5). He further observed that what became known as JECFA-CCFA and JMPR-CCPR systems proved to be of great value in providing the right framework for credibility and acceptance: JECFA and JMPR, international independent technical bodies serving as advisory bodies to CCFA and CCPR, intergovernmental bodies endeavouring to reach agreement which would result in harmonization of legislation of Member States on food additives and pesticide residues in food. These operational models were outstanding examples of how international cooperation in the field of chemical safety could be put effectively and successfully to work. There was little doubt that these examples would be followed also by other components of chemical safety programmes.
80. Professor Mercier then gave the Commission further reassurances not only that these expert committees would continue but that every effort would be made to strengthen them in close collaboration with the co-sponsoring organization. Based on the recommendations made by the IPCS Advisory and Technical Committees he summarized the situation in the following way:
JECFA and JMPR's activities from the WHO side and within the framework of IPCS will continue unchanged in scope;
Efforts will be made to see that the increased workload in terms of the everincreasing amount of toxicological data to be collected and evaluated will have the necessary technical and administrative support at the Secretariat level as well as at the level of Temporary Advisers who produce the preparatory work for the Committee's decisions;
CCFA and CCPR recommendations for priority will be handled as usual by the Secretariat in close consultation with FAO;
Proprietary unpublished data submitted to JECFA and JMPR will still be collected by the Secretariat and handled according to the existing agreement between the WHO Secretariat and the data submitting parties. Possible new arrangements are under study;
No unilateral action will be taken by IPCS to increase the number of JECFA and/or JMPR meetings without full consultation with the co-sponsoring organization, FAO.
81. In concluding his presentation, Professor Mercier stated that the efforts to potentiate JECFA and JMPR's activities would much depend on the willingness of Member States to fully collaborate with the WHO Secretariat and on the ability of IPCS to create the necessary flexibility for such a potentiation.
82. During the discussion of this agenda item, a number of delegations, while fully supporting the efforts of the IPCS in promoting worldwide chemical safety, expressed some general views concerning the advisability of simplifying the operational structures of this programme and of strengthening its priority mechanism. In particular, the Delegation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stressed the need to give emphasis to the training of toxicologists and food hygienists. The Delegations of Spain and Sweden recommended that high priority should be given to the evaluation of health risks of chemicals migrating into food from packaging material.
83. The Delegation of the USA expressed concern about JECFA and JMPR being budgeted exclusively from voluntary contributions instead of the regular budget of WHO. The UK Delegation expressed concern that widening the scope of the work on pesticides toxicology to include environmental and other aspects without a linked increase in the number of experts would result in a dilution of the present JMPR efforts. The UK Delegation was also concerned that the “lead institutions” approach might result in a clash of priorities between the directors of lead institutions and the experts of JMPR. In addition, this approach was likely to create difficulties in the protection of proprietary data rights.
84. The Delegation of Brazil announced that its government would soon communicate to IPCS its firm request to join the programme.
85. In replying, Professor Mercier reassured the various delegations that serious consideration had already been given to the points raised. These would continue to be considered carefully in the future. Concerning the question of budgeting for JECFA and the JMPR, he stated that these activities were, and would continue to be funded by the WHO regular budget.
86. The Commission expressed its appreciation to Professor Mercier for his presentation of the IPCS and recognizing the importance of the programme for the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, took note of the important commitments of IPCS to continue the activities of JECFA and JMPR.
87. The Commission was informed about the recent ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council of the United Nations) Resolution on Consumer Protection, and the discussions on the subject within the UN System and at one of the Regional Consultations held in Bangkok in June 1981.
88. These discussions had brought out clearly the fact that food was one of the most important areas deserving a high priority for action. In this context the role of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was highly appreciated, and the Secretary-General in his report to the ECOSOC, which was meeting concurrently with the Commission in Geneva, had acknowledged the importance of the Commission's work through recommending early acceptance of Codex recommended international food standards and the implementation of the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food. Similarly, member governments of UN had been requested to strengthen their food control systems for the protection of their consumers. FAO and WHO activities in these areas had been referred to and the need for providing technical assistance to developing countries further stressed.
89. The Commission noted with interest these developments and wished to be kept informed.
90. The Executive Committee discussed the subject of irradiated food at its 27th and 28th sessions. The reason for this was that the International Project on Food Irradiation was due to end and the Executive Committee had been asked if it was prepared to supervise or guide further activities in this area.
91. At its 27th Session, the Executive Committee had decided that it was not prepared to accept this task for various reasons, both technical and legal. This view had been conveyed by the Secretariat to the Manager of the International Project. In the meantime, in early June 1981, the Board of Management of the International Project met and decided not to continue the Project as it had achieved the primary objective for which it had been set up in 1970. This was to clear the wholesomeness aspects of irradiated food, which was done by the 1980 Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on Irradiated Food, which was able to formulate a recommendation on the acceptability of food irradiated up to an overall average dose of 10 kGy. On the other hand, the Board of Management expressed the view that there was an urgent need to continue close international cooperation in order to achieve, inter alia, the following objectives:
furtherance of international trade in irradiated foods;
legislative requirements regarding the importation and marketing of irradiated foods and regarding the recognition and inspection of licensed irradiation facilities;
consumer acceptance trials and marketing tests;
information service;
training courses;
focal point with appropriate expertise.
92. In order to meet the perceived need for international cooperation, it was felt necessary to set up some form of International Food Irradiation Board or Programme under the aegis of FAO, IAEA and WHO. It was hoped that such a Board or Programme might be constituted on the basis of Memoranda of Understanding by interested governments.
93. The Executive Committee at its 28th Session noted these thoughts with interest and expressed the hope that it would be possible to achieve some useful form of international cooperation in the field of food irradiation, as the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme would be benefiting from this. However, it also expressed the view that it was not within the scope of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to sponsor such an International Board or Programme, but the Commission and its subsidiary bodies would appreciate the scientific expertise which would emanate from such a cooperative venture. A number of members of the Commission spoke in support of some form of collaborative arrangement being provided in order to continue the above-mentioned activities. The Representative of IAEA informed the Commission of IAEA's interest in being kept informed of progress on acceptances of the General Standard for Irradiated Foods and informed the Commission concerning a Regional Seminar which was to be held in Japan later in 1981. The Commission was further informed that the International Facility for Food Irradiation Technology (IFFIT) sponsored by FAO, IAEA and the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries would organize a training course on the proper use and control of food irradiation. These activities were considered to be useful in furthering the acceptance of the General Standard for Irradiated Foods. The Commission concurred with the views of the Executive Committee and supported the idea that IAEA, WHO and FAO collaborate in any new international venture in this field.
94. The Commission had before it the reports of certain other international organizations working on the standardization of food and other related subjects. The organizations which informed the Commission of their activities were:
95. The salient features of the report received from the European Economic Community were described by the Representative of the Community during the discussion of the item of the agenda dealing with progress on the acceptance of Codex standards (see para. 22). The document presented by the Representative of the Community indicated the current position as regards texts adopted by the Community.
96. The Representative of the Arab Organization for Standardization and Metrology (ASMO) outlined progress on the activities of his organization in the fields of food standards and food control (see also para. 34).
97. The Representative of the Council of Europe indicated the main features of her Organization's report on activities in the area of health aspects of food and agriculture. The report of the Council of Europe covered, amongst other things, the work of the Council of Europe's Committee of Experts on the Health Control of Foodstuffs, the Council's Committee of Experts on Material coming into Contact with Food, the Council's Committee of Experts on Flavouring Substances, and the Council's Committee of Experts on Microbiological Problems.
98. The report of the activities of ISO TC/34 (Agricultural Food Products) was introduced by the ISO Representative, who referred to the established arrangements for consultations between ISO and Codex, in order to avoid duplication of activity. The Representative of ISO indicated that ISO TC/34 had formulated some 200 standards and that 200 more were being developed. The Delegation of Hungary, which hosts ISO TC/34, drew attention to cooperation between ISO, Codex, AOAC and other international organizations in the area of methods of sampling and analysis, within the framework of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.
99. The Representative of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) referred to the document “Statute of CMEA Standards - Convention of the Application of CMEA Standards”. The Commission was informed that the CMEA attached great importance to standardization work, including the development of CMEA standards for food. These standards were important from the point of view of meeting public health requirements and assisting in the maintenance of good nutrition standards, of strengthening technological disciplines in the production process, and of improving quality of food products, development of trade and economic relations of the CMEA member countries. The Commission was also informed of the comparative study of Codex and CMEA standards that was under way. A comparative study was also under way between Codex standards and the national standards of the CMEA member countries, and the results of this study would be taken into account in the future development of CMEA standards.
100. The Representative of the Secretariat of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) referred to the work of the Working Party on Standardization of Perishable Produce of the UNECE. The Working Party continued to develop standards for perishable produce, but had decided not to undertake work on standards for fresh and chilled fish, in view of the fact that other international organizations were working in this field. At its most recent session, held in June 1981, the Working Party had adopted five recommendations relating to dry and dried products. The Working Party was continuing its work on poultry, meat and egg products. The Working Party was also developing a standard for pulses, and would take into account any Codex work that might become available in this field.
101. The Commission had before it document CX/EXEC 81/28/3 on the above topic. The Executive Committee had considered this document at its 28th Session and had decided that it should be placed before the Commission as a Conference Room Document.
102. The attention of the Commission was directed to paras 2 and 3 of CX/EXEC 81/28/3 relating to obligations falling on member countries in connection with notifications of acceptances of Codex standards, and notifications under the GATT Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. The Commission noted that the arrangements which had been agreed upon between the Codex secretariat and the GATT secretariat would be of considerable benefit to member governments. The Commission endorsed the recommendation of the Executive Committee that the information contained in paras 2 and 3 of document CX/EXEC 81/28/3 be made known to governments by means of a Circular Letter issued by both the GATT and Codex secretariats.
103. The Commission noted with appreciation the efforts which had been made jointly by the Codex and UNECE secretariats to resolve certain outstanding differences between Codex and the UNECE Working Party on Standardization of Perishable Produce. The differences which needed to be resolved related to standards for certain dry and dried produce. Proposals for rationalizing the work between Codex and the Working Party had been prepared jointly by the two Secretariats and had been submitted to the Working Party and the Executive Committee.
104. The Working Party felt unable to accept the proposals for rationalization of the work and pointed out the following:
105. The Executive Committee had noted with regret that it had not been possible for the Working Party to accept the detailed proposals for rationalizing the work. The Executive Committee considered that the proposals were essential for preventing duplication, and hoped that the Working Party would consider the matter favourably at its next session.
106. The Executive Committee noted that, in the meantime, the Working Party would inform the Codex Alimentarius Commission of any plans it might have for new work.
107. The Representative of the Secretariat of the UNECE indicated that the UNECE standards contained commercial quality classes as well as minimum quality requirements. There was no problem of coordination as far as commercial quality classes were concerned, nor as far as food safety was concerned, in respect of which the expertise and authority of Codex were recognized. It was only in the area of minimum quality requirements that problems had arisen. In order to facilitate harmonization of views at the national level the secretariat of the UNECE had provided Codex contact points with all working documents related to areas which were of interest to Codex.
108. The Delegation of Australia commended the joint efforts of the two secretariats to resolve this problem. The delegation stated that the Working Party on Standardization of Perishable Produce was not, in the opinion of Australia, the right body to develop international standards for food products which were traded internationally. The delegation pointed out that the existence of two sets of minimum quality standards for the same products would give rise to difficulties for governments and could result in the erection of trade barriers. The Delegation of Australia was aware that under Article 11 of UNECE's terms of reference, countries which were not members of UNECE could participate in the work of the Working Party. This was not very satisfactory, however, as the costs of participation in two bodies doing the same type of work had to be taken into consideration.
109. The above views of the Delegation of Australia were fully supported by the Delegations of New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The Delegation of the United Kingdom also stated that it doubted that the Working Party was the correct body to decide on jurisdictional issues, and that the matter should be taken up at higher levels in the UN system. The Delegation of the United States of America noted that the inter-secretariat efforts had not succeeded in resolving the problem, and that there was a need for much more effective coordination at the national level. The Delegation of the United States of America suggested, therefore, that each interested delegation should take it upon itself to try and have this problem resolved at the national level.
110. The Coordinator for Europe, Dr. H. Woidich (Austria), offered to cooperate closely with the UNECE Working Party on Standardization of Perishable Produce, in order to resolve any problems of the kind mentioned above at the European level. The Coordinator expressed the view that the Coordinating Committee for Europe would be a suitable forum to consider such problems, and indicated that this subject had been considered by the Coordinating Committee at its two most recent sessions.
111. The Commission requested the secretariat to continue its efforts to resolve this problem, but stressed the responsibility of governments themselves for resolving issues of this kind.
112. The Commission noted with satisfaction the standing arrangements for regular consultations between the Codex and the ISO secretariats on matters of mutual interest. The Commission also noted with appreciation the steps being taken within the Coordinating Committees for Latin America and Europe to bring certain regional standards into harmony, as far as possible, with Codex standards. The Commission endorsed the proposal of the secretariat for joint consultations with EEC officials for the purpose of reviewing Codex standards and EEC directives and draft directives of interest. The Representative of the EEC indicated that he was in agreement with the proposal and looked forward to fruitful discussions with the Codex secretariat.
113. The Commission noted that some member countries had expressed an interest in the development of international standards for certain kinds of fresh fruit and vegetables of particular interest to developing countries wishing to expand their exports of these products. The Commission endorsed the recommendation of the Executive Committee that it would be useful to have a paper prepared on this subject for the 15th Session of the Commission and requested the secretariat to prepare such a paper, which should have particular regard to products of interest to developing countries. The paper would also be expected to take particular note of situations where international standards already existed for some of these products.
114. The Commission endorsed the recommendation of the Executive Committee and requested the secretariat to undertake the compilation of a list of international bodies developing composition standards for foods and other related food matters of trade significance, to assist the Commission in its task of coordination and avoidance of duplication generally. The Commission noted that the Executive Committee had requested that, if possible, the paper should be prepared for the Executive Committee's next session.
