157. The Commission had before it the Report of the 7th Session of the Codex Committee on General Principles (ALINORM 81/33). The Report was introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. C. Castang (France), who outlined its main features. In particular he drew attention to Appendix II of the report which contained a proposed revised Procedure for the Elaboration of Worldwide Codex standards and Regional Codex standards. The Chairman of the Committee pointed out that the purpose in revising the procedure was to speed up the development of Codex standards, as had been requested by Members of the Commission. The Chairman of the Committee also drew the Commission's attention to Step 8 of the revised Procedure wherein a Codex standard rather than a recommended standard would be adopted at that Step, in view of the fact that the process of elaboration of the standards ended at that Step. The ensuing Steps 9 – 12 related to matters other than the elaboration of standards and therefore did not, properly speaking, form part of the Steps procedure.
158. The Chairman of the Committee also brought to the Commission's attention the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee concerning the following topics:-
format of Codex standards and the related questions of acceptance
question of need for guidelines for Governments in connection with acceptance of milk product standards
consideration of the question of a general provision for styles in Codex standards
improved terminology to replace “non-acceptance”
status of specifications for the identity and purity of food additives.
159. The Delegation of Australia indicated that it was in full agreement with the revised Procedure for the Elaboration of Worldwide Codex standards, but would have difficulty in agreeing to the revised Procedure for the Elaboration of Regional Codex Standards. In particular, the Delegation of Australia objected to Steps 5 and 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Regional Codex Standards, which provided that “only the majority of the Members of the region concerned attending the session (of the Commission) can decide to amend or adopt the draft”. The Delegation of Australia saw this question as being tied up with the new terms of reference for Codex Coordinating Committees. The delegation pointed out, in this connection, that the Coordinating Committees for Europe had not agreed to accept the same terms of reference as the other Coordinating Committees, so far as the elaboration of standards was concerned. This would raise objections even to Steps 5 and 8 of the existing Procedure for the Elaboration of Regional Codex Standards. The Delegation of Australia considered that the problem was further exacerbated by Rule VI.3 which it still considered was in conflict with Article 1 of the Commission's statutes. The Delegation of Australia concluded by stating that the revised Procedure for the Elaboration of Regional Codex Standards contained potential for creating barriers to trade, and that Regional Coordinating Committees should not embark upon the standardization of foods unless these foods moved exclusively or almost exclusively in the region.
160. The views expressed by the Delegation of Australia were supported by the Delegations of New Zealand and the USA. The Delegation of New Zealand added that Rule VI.3 should be looked into by the Commission.
161. Several delegations pointed out that the remit of the Secretariat and the Codex Committee on General Principles had been to propose amendments to the Procedure for the Elaboration of Standards which would result in speeding up the process of developing standards. The remit did not include the putting forward of proposals relating to the substance of Rule VI.3. The problem for certain countries stemming from Rule VI.3 had to be regarded as a separate issue, therefore, from the business of speeding up the procedure for developing standards. These delegations expressed the view that the point raised by the Delegation of Australia could be examined in depth at another session of the Commission. The Delegations of Australia, New Zealand and the United States agreed that the problem arising from Rule VI.3 could, perhaps, be looked into at another time, but that there was a need to resolve, satisfactorily, at this session of the Commission, the problem arising from the views expressed in its report by the Coordinating Committee for Europe concerning its terms of reference.
162. The Coordinator for Europe, Dr. H. Woidich (Austria), stated that whilst he did not think that the revised procedure for the elaboration of Codex standards should be linked with the terms of reference of individual subsidiary bodies of the Commission, he thought that the question of the terms of reference of the Coordinating Committee for Europe could more properly be discussed under the item of the agenda dealing with the Coordinating Committee. The Coordinator proposed, as an interim solution to the problem, that the new terms of reference for the Coordinating Committee for Europe be left in abeyance, for further consideration by the Coordinating Committee for Europe at its next session and by the Commission at its 15th session.
163. In the light of the above statement made by the Coordinator for Europe, the Commission decided not to pursue the matter further, at this time, and requested the Secretariat to prepare, for consideration by the Executive Committee and by the Commission at its next session, a paper on Rule VI.3.
164. The Delegation of Poland stated that there was no reference in the revised Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards to the power of the Commission to hold standards at Step 8. The Commission agreed that a sentence should be included in the Introduction to the Procedure to cover this point.
165. The Commission adopted the Revised Procedure for the Elaboration of Worldwide and Regional Codex Standards, as set forth in Appendix II of ALINORM 81/33, with the inclusion in the Inteoduction of a sentence to cover the point made above by the Delegation of Poland.
166. The Commission agreed with the conclusions of the Codex Committee on General Principles on this subject which were as follows:
It is better to consider all the relevant detail and agree in an international standard on what it should be than to exclude the detail from the standard and leave it to national legislation.
Codex Committees are the competent bodies to determine how much detail there should be in each draft standard, which can vary with the product being considered.
The suggestion that certain parts of a standard could be mandatory and other parts optional is not accepted, and Codex Committees should not be asked to consider this. Instead, when considering how much detail there should be in the standards they are elaborating, the attention of the Codex Committees should be drawn to the importance of paying close attention to the work priorities criteria, and also to the possibility for participating countries to submit economic impact statements concerning any or all of the provisions of the standards.
Governments should address the question of acceptance of Codex standards with a sense of urgency. Where a Government cannot accept a standard or some provisions of a standard, it should indicate what will be its attitude to products which are in conformity with the standards. The possibility of free circulation for products in conformity with the standards should be given urgent consideration.
167. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Committee as set forth in paragraph 26 of its report.
168. The Commission agreed with the recommendations of the Committee as set forth in paragraphs 38–40 of the Committee's report.
169. The Commission adopted the recommendations of the Committee, as set forth in paragraph 45 of the Committee's report. The Commission agreed that this matter should be brought to the attention of subsidiary bodies developing standards.
170. The Commission noted that it was the intention to deal with this matter under the item of the agenda relating to the Codex Committee on Food Additives.
171. The Delegation of Austria referred to the query posed in paragraph 50b of the report, namely whether it was appropriate to establish methods of analysis for parameters not provided for in standards. The Codex Committee on General Principles had reaffirmed its view that there was no need for nor requirement on the part of the Commission to elaborate such methods. The Delegation of Austria agreed that this was true for most products, but that in the case of natural mineral water there was a need for such methods. The Delegation of Austria indicated that it wished to have its view on this matter recorded in the report.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
172. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on General Principles should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of France.
173. The Commission had before it the Report of the 15th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (ALINORM 81/22).
174. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. R.H. McKay (Canada), introduced the report and outlined the work undertaken since the last session of the Commission. He confirmed the date and venue for the Sixteenth Session of the Committee (13–21 May 1982, Ottawa).
176. The Commission was informed that the Committee, which had endorsed the labelling provisions contained in the Standards at Step 8, had, however, requested the originating Committee of several of the standards to bring the date-marking provisions into line with the revised guidelines on date-marking and to introduce provisions for the labelling of non-retail containers after the respective guidelines had been finalized by the Committee on Labelling.
177. The Commission pointed out that in addition to further consideration of the Draft Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling and the revised text of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, the Committee would examine, at its next session, the Draft Guidelines on Non-Retail Containers, having regard to a working group's report (Appendix VIII of ALINORM 81/22) and further government comments thereon. The future work programme would also include the elaboration of additional guidelines complementary to the revised General Standard on Labelling, which had been briefly discussed at the 15th session of the Committee.
178. The Chairman pointed out that the revision of this standard was of the utmost importance and extended, on behalf of the Committee, thanks to the consultant, Mr. L.J. Erwin of Australia, who had prepared an excellent working paper on which the Committee's deliberations had been based.
179. The Delegation of Norway drew attention to Section 5.5 of the revised text which dealt with the labelling requirements for foods and ingredients which had been irradiated. The delegation pointed out that the practice of treating condiments and spices with ethylene oxide gave rise to preoccupation for health reasons, and that the authorities concerned would prefer irradiation treatment. However, the detailed labelling requirements to declare this treatment might, in fact, decrease consumer acceptance and discourage producers from using irradiation. It was also noted that treatment with ethylene oxide, despite its adverse effects, would not need to be declared on the label. The view that this matter should be reconsidered by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling was supported by the delegations of Denmark, Finland and Sweden. The Commission agreed that this matter should be discussed at the next session of the Committee.
180. The Delegation of Argentina recalled that it had adopted the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods with specified deviations mainly because of the options in the provision for the declaration of the country of origin, and had, therefore, noted with satisfaction the proposal to make this declaration mandatory.
181. The Delegation of Spain pointed out that “container” should be translated as “envase”.
182. The Delegation of Switzerland suggested that the Committee should elaborate a definition for Net Contents to assist the Committee on Methods of Analysis which was giving consideration to Sampling Plans for Net Contents. The Delegation of Cuba emphasized the need to make the SI (“Système International”) System of Measurement mandatory to permit the optional use of any other measurement system if that would be required by national legislation.
183. Several other delegations expressed their particular interest in the revision of the standard and indicated that they would submit further technical comments to the next session of the Committee.
Status of the Revised Text of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods
184. The Commission decided to advance the Revised Text of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods to Step 6 of the Procedure. The Commission agreed that, in view of the fundamental importance of the standard, due consideration should be given to a satisfactory text of all provisions before the revised text of the standard is advanced to Step 8 and submitted for adoption to the Commission.
185. The Chairman of the Committee informed the Commission that, despite the extensive amendment of these guidelines, the Committee had decided to advance them to Step 5. This was in order to be able to place this important subject before the Commission and thus increase the awareness of Governments that further comments were needed to proceed with the elaboration of the text.
186. The Commission agreed with a proposal from the Delegation of Austria to include in the guideline reference to kilojoules as measurement for energy in the same way as had been done in the provisions for nutrition labelling in the standards for Foods for Special Dietary Uses, and instructed the Secretariat to do so.
Status of the Guidelines
187. The Commission decided to advance the Draft Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling to Step 6 of the Procedure.
188. A summary of the amendments elaborated by the Committee was presented on page 2 of ALINORM 81/21. In particular, Section 5 (Instructions to Codex Committees) was amended to state that justification to the Committee might be provided also in cases where the date of minimum durability was not chosen. It had also been agreed to include a new section 6 on the presentation of date-marking in Codex standards. The Committee had decided to retain two categories of foods depending on their shelflife: (a) food that would not keep for more than three months and (b) all other foods; and to accept an all-numeric scheme in the order day/month/year. Products with a shelflife of more than three months would require the declaration of month and year only.
189. The Commission agreed with a proposal by the Chairman of the Committee to clarify the meaning of the last sentence of Section 6.1 and instructed the Secretariat to amend the guidelines accordingly.
190. The Chairman of the Committee pointed out that appropriate date-marking provisions in conformity with these guidelines would be included in the revised text of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. The Secretariat was instructed to align Section 1.1 of the Spanish text to correspond with the correct English version.
191. The Delegation of Egypt was of the opinion that in addition to the date for minimum durability an expiry date should be indicated. The Delegation of Thailand stated that Thailand could not accept the concept of a minimum durability date and required an expiry date for perishable foods and a date of manufacture for other foods.
192. The Representative of the EEC reiterated his proposal not to require the indication of the year for products with a shelflife of less than three months, since, due to the nature of these products they could not be kept more than one year. He requested that this question be re-examined within the context of the revision of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods.
193. The Delegation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stressed the importance of date-marking for food control purposes and consumer protection. He further drew attention to the difficulties in establishing appropriate storage instructions which would safeguard the quality of the food and which were valid under a wide variety of storage conditions, having regard to different climatic zones and other conditions for storage.
194. The Commission concluded that adequate provisions were included in the Guidelines.
Status of the Revised Guidelines
195. The Commission adopted the Revised Guidelines on Date-Marking for Use of Codex Committees which would also be used in elaborating date-marking provisions for the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods.
196. The Rapporteur of the OIV informed the Commission of the membership of his organization, which included producer as well as wine consuming countries, which were also members of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
197. He also informed the Commission of the work on a General Labelling Standard for Wines which had been started after the Commission, at its 10th Session, had decided not to deal with this matter. The standard under elaboration by OIV, which was based on the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, included, however, additional provisions which were specific for wines. The Representative of the IWO stated that OIV would keep the Commission informed about their activities. The Chairman expressed the Commission's appreciation for this offer.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
198. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Committee on Food Labelling should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Canada.
199. The Commission had before it the Report of the Fourteenth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (ALINORM 81/12).
200. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. A. Feberwee (Netherlands) reported on the work accomplished by the Committee since the last session of the Commission and referred in particular to the “Specifications of Identity and Purity of Food Additives” at Step 5 and a number of other matters arising from the report of the 14th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA).
201. The Commission adopted the specifications contained in Appendix VII (Category I from Food and Nutrition Papers Nos 4 and 7) of ALINORM 81/12 as recommended Codex specifications.
202. The Commission was informed of the discussions on the “Status of Food Additive Specifications” in respect of food additive provisions in Codex Standards that had taken place at the 7th Session of the Codex Committee on General Principles. The Codex Committee on General Principles had concluded that while Codex specifications per se were advisory and were not subject to acceptance, there was clearly an obligation on the part of Governments not to use food additives unless they met the minimum safety requirements laid down in the specifications for the additives, which had been evaluated by the expert toxicologists and chemists of JECFA. The Commission noted that advice had been sought from JECFA on what constituted the safety aspects of their specifications. This would be considered by the CCFA and reported on to the next session of the Commission.
203. The Commission agreed with the conclusion of the Codex Committee on General Principles and the action initiated by the Codex Committee on Food Additives. The Commission reaffirmed that the specifications per se were advisory and not subject to government acceptance. The Commission agreed to consider the subject of the role of the specifications in relation to food additive provisions in Codex Standards at its next session, when the guidance from JECFA and CCFA would be available.
204. The Delegation of the UK drew attention to paragraph 49 od the Report of the Committee on General Principles (ALINORM 81/33) and in particular to the need to refer also the proposed procedures to the Secretariats of JECFA and the Codex Committee on Food Additives. The Commission agreed to this action.
205. Some delegations drew the attention of FAO and WHO to the need for timely publication and distribution of JECFA Specifications and the “Guide to the Safe Use of Food Additives” which according to them were extremely useful publications.
206. The Chairman of the Committee informed the Commission of discussions on the above subject at the 14th Session of the Committee (paras 44–51 of ALINORM 81/12). The Commission noted with satisfaction that, as a follow up, the Committee was preparing Guidelines for the Codex Commodity Committees on the type of information required by the Committee in order to ensure that the use of the additives was adequately justified from technological and other points of view. The kind of information required by the Committee would include brief summaries of the purposes of the additive provided for, why other additives also suitable for the intended purpose had not been selected, and the consequences of not using such additives.
207. The Commission agreed to the action taken by the Committee to prepare guidelines for commodity committees.
208. The Delegation of Egypt suggested that particular consideration should be given to (i) strict control of the use of food additives such as food colours and flavours which might mask hygienic and organoleptic qualities and (ii) possible restriction of the length of lists of food additives in Commodity Standards.
209. The Commission noted that the Committee, as requested by the Thirteenth Session of the Commission, considered the definition of “Smoke” in the Code of Practice for Smoked Fish (Section 2.23), which in the opinion of the delegations of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany did not prohibit the use of sawdust containing extraneous material such as plastic (paras 21–23, ALINORM 81/12).
210. The Committee had agreed upon the following definition of “smoke” for submission to the Commission as an amendment to the Code of Practice of Smoked Fish (Section 2.23).
“Smoke” means volatile products derived from the combination of wood (including sawdust) or woody plants in the natural state, excluding wood or plants which have been impregnated, coloured, gummed or painted or treated in a similar manner. The raw material used for the generation of smoke shall be free from extraneous material such as plastic. The term “smoke” shall include derivatives obtained by condensation or absorption of smoke in a suitable food grade liquid. A dip which will impart a smoky flavour to fishery products can be prepared by diluting an appropriate quantity in potable water.
211. The Delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany and Austria expressed concern at the inclusion of smoke fluids in the definition of smoke and suggested that the smoke flavours be treated separately. The Commission noted that the question raised by the delegations had not been referred to by the Committee on Food Additives for consideration, and suggested that the delegations raise this matter at the next session of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products.
212. The Commission adopted the definition of smoke submitted by the Committee as an amendment at Step 9 to the Code of Practice for Smoked Fish. The amendments made in the revised definition of “smoke” were not considered to be substantive.
213. The Commission noted the recommendation of the Committee that certain new findings and developments in the field of Food Irradiation reported by the Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods (WHO Technical Report Series No. 659) called for amendments of (i) the Recommended International General Standard for Irradiated Foods (CAC/RS 106-1979) and (ii) the Recommended International Code of Practice for the Operation of Radiation Facilities for the Treatment of Foods (CAC/RCP 19-1979). The Commission further noted that consequential amendments to the standard and the Code were already in the process of elaboration by a scientific sub-committee convened by FAO/IAEA/ WHO. The Commission agreed to the initiation of the procedure for the amendment of the Standard on Irradiated Foods and the Code of Practice for the Operation of Radiation Facilities, and also that the amendments proposed by the scientific sub-committee should be sent to Governments for comments at Step 3.
Other Matters
214. The Delegation of Belgium drew the attention of the Commission to paragraph 135 of the Report of the Committee (ALINORM 81/12) and enquired about developments, if any, on implementing the recommendations for setting priorities for the evaluation of flavouring substances as laid down in the 20th Report of JECFA.
215. The Representative of WHO informed the Commission that it was not possible to implement the recommendation because of limitations of funds and referred to activities of other organizations such as the Council of Europe. He advised that it might be possible for JECFA to consider these matters gradually over the next couple of years.
216. The Representative of the International Organization of the Flavour Industry informed the Commission that IOFI was already collecting data on natural and nature-identical flavouring substances and hoped to provide information which would help in determining priorities for the evaluation of flavouring substances.
217. The Commission took note of the fact that no working group had been established for setting up of priorities for evaluation of flavouring substances, and recommended that efforts be made by JECFA, with assistance possibly from the IPCS, to establish such a group at an early date.
218. The Delegation of Spain considered it very important for CCFA and JECFA to embark on new activities embracing studies of substances coming directly in contact with food, for example packaging materials and other materials coming into contact with food during its preparation. A reference was made to the great interest of consumer organizations in Spain in studies on materials that came into direct contact with the mouth.
219. The Representative of WHO informed the Commission that packaging materials had been dealt with in general terms at the last session of JECFA, but that much work still remained to be done.
220. The Commission noted that these subjects were on the CCFA's list of future activities.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
221. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Food Additives should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the Netherlands.
222. The Commission had before it the report of the 12th Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues held in The Hague in June 1980 (ALINORM 81/24 and Add. 1) and proposed amendments to draft maximum residue limits at Steps 5 and 8 (ALINORM 81/37-Parts I and II). It noted that the report of the 13th Session of the Committee held in June 1981 would be considered at the next session of the Commission. The report was introduced by the Chairman of the Committee Ir. A.J. Pieters (Netherlands), who gave an account of the work accomplished by the Committee since the last session of the Commission.
223. The Commission was informed that interest in the work of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) was great and growing as evidenced by an increasing participation by governments and international organizations at sessions of the Committee. Not only did more developing countries attend sessions of the CCPR and its working groups, but the activities of the Working Group on Problems relating to Pesticide Residues in Developing Countries were gathering momentum. It was becoming obvious that strengthening the capabilities of developing countries in pesticide residue control was a necessary pre-requisite to an effective participation by those countries in the work of the Commission.
224. The Commission agreed that there was no need to enter into detailed discussion of the maximum residue limits at Step 5 and decided to advance them en bloc to Step 6 of the Procedure (see ALINORM 81/24-Add.1, MRLs marked as being at Step 5). The pesticides involved are bromophos (4) (bran), captan (7), DDT (21), dimethoate (27), lindane (48) (cocoa butter, cocoa mass), cyhexatin (67), chlorothalonil (81), phosmet (103), propargite (113) and tecnazene (115).
225. As regards maximum residue limits at Step 5 where the CCPR had recommended the omission of Steps 6 and 7, the Commission agreed that these steps should not be deleted where doubt existed concerning the acceptability of previously evaluated toxicological data, as indicated in the written comments of Canada (see ALINORM 81/37-Part I). Similarly the Commission decided that the MRLs for such pesticides and their residues at Step 8 of the Procedure should not be sent to governments for acceptance until the doubt concerning the acceptability of certain toxicological data were resolved. The pesticides indicated in the Canadian comments are the following: captafol, captan, diquat, fenitrothion, paraquat, disulfoton, chlorothalonil, fenamiphos, acephate, carbofuran, dialifos, methamidophos and propargite. The Commission also noted that other pesticides, besides those indicated in the Canadian comments, might be involved and authorized the Secretariat not to send these to governments for acceptance. The JMPR was requested to reconsider its evaluation of the pesticides in question as a matter of urgency. The Representative of WHO indicated that the 1981 JMPR would deal with this question. It was noted that new data on these pesticides could be expected in the foreseeable future and that these data would be evaluated by the JMPR.
226. As regards MRLs for pesticides not referred to in the previous paragraphs, the following is a summary of points raised during the discussion of document ALINORM 81/21-Add. 1 and decisions taken.
General Remarks
227. The Delegations of the Netherlands and of the Federal Republic of Germany indicated that they had submitted comments in writing to the Secretariat, but that these were not included in the documents before the Commission. The Commission was informed that the comments had not been received by the Secretariat.
Bromophos (4)
228. The Delegation of the Netherlands expressed the opinion that the mixing of bromophos with cereals led to relatively high residues in processed cereals, such as wholemeal bread which were consumed in high amounts in that country. These residues were not acceptable and, therefore, reserved their position concerning the proposed MRLs in cereals and cereal products. Other delegations expressed a similar view.
229. The Commission adopted the MRLs at Step 8 of the Codex Procedure and decided that they be sent to governments for acceptance.
Carbaryl (8)
230. The Delegation of the Netherlands, supported by other delegations and by the Representative of the EEC, made remarks similar to those made in connection with bromophos (see para. 228). The Commission adopted the MRLs at Step 8 of the Codex Procedure and decided that they be sent to governments for acceptance.
D.D.T. (21)
231. The Commission noted that the MRL for grapes (2 mg/kg) had been erroneously omitted in document ALINORM 81/24-Add. 1. The MRLs were advanced to Step 6 (see para. 224).
Lindane (48)
232. The Commission noted that the MRL for carrots should read 0.2 mg/kg and not 2 mg/kg. The Delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany expressed the opinion that, considering the Codex and EC sampling procedures, an MRL of 0.1 mg/kg might suffice. The Commission adopted the MRLs for spinach and carrots at Step 8 of the Procedure and decided that they be sent to governments for acceptance.
Thiophanate-methyl (77)
233. The Commission noted that this item had been erroneously omitted from ALINORM 81/24-Add.1. It decided to adopt the MRLs (0.1 mg/kg in chicken fat and chicken meat, at or about the limit of determination) at Step 8 of the Procedure and decided that they be sent to governments for acceptance.
Pirimiphos-methyl (86)
234. The Delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany was of the opinion that an MRL of 1 mg/kg would suffice for cabbage, cauliflower and lettuce and 2 mg/kg for spinach. The Delegation of the Netherlands, supported by other delegations, made remarks similar to those made in connection with bromophos (see para. 228). The Commission adopted the MRLs at Step 8 of the Codex Procedure and decided that they be sent to governments for acceptance.
Chlorpyriphos-methyl (90)
235. The Delegation of the Netherlands, supported by other delegations made remarks similar to those made in connection with bromophos (see para. 228). The Commission adopted the MRLs at Step 8 of the Codex Procedure and decided that they be sent to governments for acceptance.
Acephate (95) and Methamidophos (100)
236. For reasons indicated in para. 223 and since the CCPR had under review those pesticides which are also metabolites of other pesticides (e.g. in this case the pesticide methamidophos is a metabolite of acephate), the Commission decided to return the MRL to Step 7 of the Procedure.
Chlordimeform (13), Trichlorfon (66), Sec-Butylamine (89), Pirimicarb (101), Triforine (116), Guazatine (114)
237. The Commission agreed to omit Steps 6 and 7 and adopted the MRLs at Step 8 of the Procedure and decided that they be sent to Governments for acceptance.
Other Pesticides submitted to the Commission at Step 8
238. The Commission noted that written comments had been received on some of the MRLs, but that they were generally acceptable. In the absence of specific discussions the Commission adopted the MRLs for bromophos-ethyl (5), diphenylamine (30), malathion (49), parathion-methyl (59), thiabendazole (65), thiometon (76), dichlorfluanid (82), cyanofenphos (91), ethiofencarb (107), fenbutatin oxide (109), imazalil (110), and prodione (111) at Step 8 of the Procedure and decided that they be sent to governments for acceptance.
239. The Commission had before it amendments of a substantive as well as non-substantive nature proposed by the CCPR to maximum residue limits before governments for acceptance. These are given in Part A of Appendix VI to ALINORM 81/24.
240. The Commission adopted the non-substantive amendments in connection with fenitrothion (37), inorganic bromide (47), methidathion (51) and thiometon (76). It agreed with the conclusion of the CCPR that the general MRL for demeton-S-methyl (73) in animal feeds adopted at Step 8 at the last session should not be sent to governments for acceptance as this general limit would shortly be replaced by MRLs in individual animal feeds.
241. As regards the substantive amendments in connection with carbaryl (8), chlorpyriphos (17) and trichlorfon (66) the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany repeated its observation concerning residues arising from the use of carbaryl on cereals (see para. 228). The Delegation of the USA referred to its written comments in ALINORM 81/37-Part II concerning the desirability of including 1-naphthol in the definition of carbaryl residue and 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol in the definition of chlorpyrifos. Noting that these questions had been considered by the CCPR, but also noting that there were a significant number of technical comments in documents ALINORM 81/37-Parts I and II, the Commission decided to advance the draft amendments in the Codex procedure but not to omit Steps 6 and 7.
242. The Commission advanced the proposed amendment of the MRL for bromophos (4) in blackberries, as given in Part B of Appendix VI to ALINORM 81/24 to Step 6 noting that this amendment had been advanced to Step 5 of the Procedure by the 1981 session of the CCPR.
243. The Commission had before it the above document contained in Appendix III to ALINORM 81/24 and comments thereon in ALINORM 81/37, Parts I and II. In introducing this subject the Delegation of the Netherlands indicated that the document in question served to clarify, for the purpose of analysis, the part of a product to which the MRL applied. It questioned whether this sort of guidelines should follow the Codex Step Procedure. As at the last (June 1981) session of the CCPR the desirability of omitting Steps 6 and 7 had been questioned and as there were some technical comments on the document, the delegation suggested that Steps 6 and 7 not be omitted.
244. The Delegation of Australia was of the opinion that the document was of great importance and was urgently needed for the enforcement of Codex MRL and questioned whether it should once again be returned to the Commission. The Delegation of Spain supported by the Delegations of the Ivory Coast and Egypt wished the document to be sent to Step 6 of the Procedure in order to have further opportunity to consider questions such as how to deal with fruits and inedible peel. The Delegation of the United Kingdom noted that the document required continuing updating and agreed with the remarks of the Delegation of Australia. It also questioned whether it was necessary for the document to follow the Step Procedure.
245. The Secretariat indicated that the document served to clarify the exact meaning of Codex MRLs in relation to enforcement, but contained information which per se need not be subject to the Acceptance Procedure. Once finalized it will be included in publications on pesticide residues limits. The Delegation of Spain was against the development of mandatory provisions as to what parts of food MRLs should supply.
246. The Commission decided to send the document to Step 6 and requested the CCPR to discuss the procedures which should be followed in the further elaboration of the document.
Other Matters arising from the Report of the 12th Session of the Committee
248. The Commission noted that it was not expected that the extent of work on these contaminants by the CCPR would be significant in the near future. As regards supporting facilities the Commission was informed that, in the event of this additional work assuming significant proportions, the Codex Secretariat would find it difficult to accommodate such additional work within the budgetary and manpower resources available. The Representative of WHO indicated that, at this stage, no mechanism existed for the generation and evaluation of data on the basis of which the CCPR could base appropriate recommendations. The Delegation of the Netherlands informed the Commission that the Netherlands would continue to provide supporting facilities to the CCPR at the present level.
249. A number of delegations were of the opinion that it was necessary to define better the types of contaminants which would be handled by the CCFA and by the CCPR by referring to the origin of the contaminants concerned.
250. The Commission discussed whether to amend at the present session the terms of reference of the CCPR with respect to environmental and industrial contaminants or whether the matter should be referred to the CCPR. After full discussion and noting that the CCPR would in any event consider individual contaminants on their merits in relation to its own work and priorities, the Commission adopted the following wording, based on the report of the CCPR, to be added to the terms of reference of the Committee:
“To establish maximum limits for environmental and industrial contaminants showing chemical or other similarity to pesticides, in specific food items or group of food”.
251. The Commission also adopted the revised terms of reference as proposed by the CCPR in para. 16, ALINORM 81/24 noting that it reflected work actually carried out by the Committee.
252. The Delegation of Finland was of the opinion that the CCPR should also deal with residues originating from drugs used in veterinary practice such as thiabendazole, which left residues in meat or milk products.
253. The Delegation of UK raised a matter relating to the inclusion of reference to Codex maximum limits for pesticide residues in Codex Commodity standards. It was agreed to discuss this question when discussing the draft standard for maize.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
254. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of The Netherlands.
255. The Commission had before it the Report of the 17th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (ALINORM 81/13).
256. The Commission agreed, before discussing the Report, to discuss item (c) “General Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods” as the first item.
257. The Report was introduced by the Rapporteur, Dr. R.W. Weik (USA).
258. The Commission was informed that the above had been formulated by a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation in 1977 as a result of a request of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, and had since been examined and amended by successive meetings of that Committee and by the FAO/WHO Working Group.
259. Work on the criteria had now been completed and the Committee had agreed to submit the text, as contained in ALINORM 81/13, Appendix II, to the Commission for approval and adoption at Step 8. The Commission noted that the text had been originally intended for inclusion in the Procedural Manual as an advisory text, but that because the need for the document was urgent and because it contained both technical as well as procedural guidance, the Committee had recommended that it should be prepared and distributed as soon as possible as a separate publication. At a later date the text could be included either verbatim or by reference in the Procedural Manual.
260. The Delegation of Switzerland expressed concern that even though the text was advisory, the provisions could be applied by both official authorities and by industry and that their interpretations might be different. Certain provisions referring to action to be taken when a product failed to meet a criterion might result in the unnecessary condemnation of the food.
261. The Delegation of Egypt was of the opinion that minimum advisory specifications were insufficient to protect the health of the consumer from contaminated food and that specifications should be compulsory.
262. The Delegation of the United Kingdom, noting the long and careful consideration that had been given to the development of the General Principles, pointed out that these were both advisory and mandatory criteria. The latter were to deal with the serious health hazards such as the presence of pathogens. However, food could contain many micro-organisms which are quite harmless, but which could give some indication of the general level of hygiene. It was these organisms which were included in the advisory specifications to be attached to an advisory code of practice. These advisory specifications were intended to be applied at the point of production, to assist in ensuring that hygiene requirements of production had been achieved. They were only a part of the total system of control of every stage of the process and every part of the factory, which included many other aspects, all equally important, such as intensive periodic inspection, proper training of the workers, control of temperature, correct heat processing. Failure to meet the specifications did not necessarily mean that the food was unsafe, but before a decision was made there should be a careful investigation of the factory, of the process and of the product. The failure to meet a specification might simply be due to the natural variation in microbiological testing. Thorough investigation might reveal no abnormalities and the inspector had the discretion to release the food for human consumption if he were satisfied. However, if there were, for example, significant numbers of salmonellae in food for infants which were to be consumed without heat treatment, the inspectors would condemn that food or at least have it so treated as to kill the pathogens. Relying solely on end-product specifications, without proper inspection and process control, and control of hygienic distribution and sale, could never guarantee that the food was safe. Specifications associated with a code of hygienic practice for food production were not intended to be applied to the food at other points in distribution and sale where some microbial characteristics might have altered, though the food would still be safe and organoleptically satisfactory. A survey of infant foods had been conducted in Canada using the Codex microbiological specifications. This revealed that a significant number of samples of infant foods on sale did not pass all the tests. However, no pathogens had been found in any of the samples nor was there any evidence of illness associated with consumption of the batches of foods from which the samples had been taken. Using these specifications as legal standards would have led to the destruction of a great deal of satisfactory food. It was pointed out at the last session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene that criteria might sometimes be based on what could be achieved with the most sophisticated manufacturing practices, and not on the minimum that needed to be achieved to produce an acceptable level of safety and wholesomeness. One of the roles of Codex standards, codes of practice and microbiological criteria was to assist in the production of food that is fully and freely acceptable in international trade. In conclusion, the delegation pointed out that not all the requirements of codes etc. might be necessary for the production of a food that is fully safe and acceptable for the domestic market of the producing country.
263. The Delegation of Switzerland, on the basis of the discussion, stated that it was prepared to accept the text of the General Principles. It pointed out, however, that the great majority of incidents due to food contamination occurred through improper handling in the home.
264. The Delegation of Chile was of the opinion that the text could serve as guidelines for governments. The delegation pointed out that as the criteria were advisory, governments were free to use them as they wished.
265. The Commission noted that the text had general approval and agreed with the recommendation of the Committee to publish the criteria as a separate document as soon as possible. It was also agreed that the text would be included verbatim in the next edition of the Procedural Manual.
266. The Commission had before it ALINORM 81/13 Appendix VII which contained the above specifications and methods. It noted that the main Code of Hygienic Practice for Foods for Infants and Children had already been adopted by the 13th Session (ALINORM 79/38, para. 196), but that the specifications and methods had been returned to Step 6 for further consideration, since the decision on whether the criteria should be mandatory or advisory depended on the outcome of discussions on the General Principles for and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods (see also paras 258 – 265 of this Report).
267. At its 17th Session the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene had stated that the Microbiological Specifications were strictly of an advisory nature and that there should be a preface to this effect, which now appears in Appendix VII.
268. The Commission noted that there was some concern among countries, where microbiological specifications for foods for infants and children were mandatory, about including microbiological limits for pathogens in advisory texts. The delegation of Norway was of the opinion that even if the microbiological specifications for foods for infants and children were to be advisory texts, specifications for pathogenic microorganisms should be mandatory.
269. The Delegation of Egypt pointed out that children were more at risk to Salmonella infections and that the sample specified in the present specification should be increased to take account of this. The Delegation of Egypt stressed the importance of also referring to the absence of E. coli in coliform count standards. The Delegation of Poland was of the opinion that the microbiological criteria were too lenient from the health point of view, and that they should include, amongst other things, the requirements as regards Staphylococcus aureus. The Commission noted that other delegations also had comments of a technical nature which required consideration by the specialized body concerned, that is the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene.
270. The Commission noted that there was a pressing need for the Code to be completed by the addition of microbiological specifications especially in view of the complementary nature of this Code to the Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes which had been recently adopted as a Recommendation by the World Health Assembly in May 1981. In addition, reference was made to the Code of Hygienic Practice in the three Codex Standards for Foods for Infants and Children which had been adopted by the Commission at its 11th Session.
271. The Commission noted that countries having mandatory provisions for these microbiological specifications could specify this as a deviation when accepting the Codex Standards for Foods for Infants and Children.
Status of the Microbiological Specifications and Methods of Analysis
272. The Commission decided to adopt the Microbiological Specifications for Foods for Infants and Children and Methods of Microbiological Analysis for Foods for Infants and Children at Step 8 of the Procedure. It also decided to refer the technical comments made by the delegations to the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene for further consideration.
273. The Commission considered the above draft Code contained in ALINORM 81/13 Appendix VI. It noted that the revised sections 7.4 and 7.5 dealing with packaging had been agreed by the Committee and that the Code was now submitted for adoption at Step 5 of the Procedure.
Status of the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for the Processing of Frog Legs
274. The Commission decided to advance the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for the Processing of Frog Legs to Step 6 of the Procedure.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
275. The Commission confirmed that under Rule IX.10 the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the United States of America.
276. The Commission had before it the Report of the above Committee (ALINORM 81/33). Dr. K. Suto of the Delegation of Hungary introduced the report of the Committee. He informed the Commission that the Committee had placed special emphasis on sampling at its last session and had made significant progress in that field. In the field of analysis, the Committee had recognized the need to review Codex methods in the light of the new definitions of Codex methods and had prepared guidelines for Codex Commodity Committees on how such a review could be initiated. The Committee had excellent cooperation in the field of analysis and sampling with international organizations through interagency meetings held prior to sessions of the Committee. Dr. Suto enumerated the work carried out by the 12th session of the Committee and concluded by thanking FAO/WHO, the Codex Secretariat and other international organizations for their support. In response, the Chairman of the Commission expressed his thanks to the Government of Hungary for the support given to the work of the Committee.
278. The Commission had before it general reference as well as alternative methods for the determination of mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, copper, zinc and tin in foods (see Appendix IV ALINORM 81/23), with a recommendation for some of the methods that Steps 6 and 7 be omitted.
279. The Delegation of Austria indicated that the methods measured total metal content and suggested that this fact be mentioned in an introduction to the general methods. The delegation noted that the method for mercury applied only to fish and sea-food and pointed out that other methods now existed which were generally applicable. The Delegation of Norway pointed out that rapid methods were suitable for monitoring, but might not be appropriate in official food control. It also pointed to the rapid development of instrumentation which led to a need to revise standardized methodology rather frequently.
280. The Delegation of the Netherlands was of the opinion that as difficulties had been experienced in the Committee regarding the method for lead determination, Steps 6 and 7 should not be omitted. As regards the harmonization of collaborative testing (see para. 65, ALINORM 81/23), the Delegation of Spain was of the opinion that it is necessary to harmonize analytical terminology for the presentation of results.
281. The Commission decided that the various remarks be referred to the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling. The Commission also decided to adopt the recommendations of the Committee regarding the general methods for contaminants, as contained in Appendix IV, ALINORM 81/23, including the indication that the methods measured total metal content, and without the omission of Steps 6 and 7 in the case of the reference method for lead.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
282. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Hungary.
