8. The Commission received reports concerning the Twenty-Ninth and Thirtieth Sessions of the Executive Committee contained in documents ALINORM 83/3 and ALINORM 83/4, respectively. In introducing and reviewing the reports, the Chairman indicated that all substantive items considered by the Executive Committee would be dealt with by the Commission under agenda items relating to the matters concerned. The following matters were dealt with under this item of the agenda.
9. The Commission was informed that the Executive Committee, at its Twenty-Ninth Session (see paras 119–121 of ALINORM 83/3) had received a report by WHO on the elaboration of standardized terminology on food and nutrition, including terms relevant to food safety. In the course of the elaboration of this terminology, difficulties had been encountered with respect to certain Codex definitions that could, for technical reasons, not be included in WHO's computerized Terminology Information System. The Executive Committee had taken note of this situation but considered that no action on its part was called for at the present time since the purposes of the Codex definitions were different from those of WHO. The Commission agreed with this view of its Executive Committee.
10. The Commission strongly supported the reminder of the Executive Committee at its Twenty-Ninth Session to Codex Committee Chairmen (para. 140, ALINORM 83/3) of their obligation under Section 10(b) of the “Guidelines for Codex Committees” as contained in the Procedural Manual of the Commission, to ensure that the written comments of countries not represented at the sessions were considered by the Commission. The Commission recognized that whilst all comments must be considered, it would not always be practicable to reflect all comments in the report. However, brief reasons for disagreeing with any proposal of a country not represented at the sessions should be recorded.
Nineteenth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene
11. A propos of paragraph 147 of document ALINORM 83/3, the Commission noted that the 19th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene had been fixed for 26 to 30 September 1983.
12. The Representative of the Region of Latin America, at the 29th Session of the Executive Committee, had indicated that the authorities in Brazil had requested that every endeavour should be made by the Secretariat to despatch working documents for Codex meetings earlier. The Commission was informed by the Secretariat that it had looked into this matter. The Delegation of Brazil indicated that working documents were now being received in good time before sessions.
13. The Commission was informed by the Secretariat that the topic of the possibility of reducing the length and improving the structure of Codex Committee reports had been introduced by the Representative of the Region of North America at the 30th Session of the Executive Committee. The discussion on this topic and the conclusions of the Executive Committee are contained in document ALINORM 83/4, paragraphs 41–45.
14. The Commission agreed with the conclusions of the Executive Committee and noted that in response to the proposal of the Representative of the Region of North America, key words indicating decisions taken or action planned, etc., would, henceforth, be underlined in all Codex reports.
15. The Commission took note of the Executive Committee discussions on this topic at its 30th Session as contained in paras 50–64 of ALINORM 83/4. The Commission agreed with the conclusions of the Executive Committee as set out in para. 54 of ALINORM 83/4 concerning the new administrative arrangements which were set out in an Appendix to the Report of the 30th Session of the Executive Committee. The Commission expressed satisfaction at the efforts of the Secretariat in this regard and noted that the Secretariat would be sending a circular letter on this matter to all Member States.
16. The Commission was informed that this subject had been raised by the representative of the Region of North America at the 30th Session of the Executive Committee (ALINORM 83/4, paragraphs 55–57).
17. The Commission noted that the Executive Committee would be considering this matter again at its 31st Session in the light of a paper to be prepared by Canada giving more information on current coding systems, countries using them and the extent of international trade in boxed meat cuts. On the question of whether this kind of activity fell within the terms of reference of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the Delegation of Norway expressed the view that if there was to be standardization work undertaken in this field it should be done within the Codex system.
18. The Commission had before it a list of Members of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The membership is set out in Appendix VIII to this report. The Commission noted that since its last Session, Grenada had become a member of the Commission, bringing the current membership to 122 countries. The Commission expressed the hope that Grenada would find Codex work of value.
19. The Commission requested the Secretariat to intensify its efforts to increase membership and to stress the benefits of participation in Codex work.
20. The Commission had before it document ALINORM 83/2. In addition to the information contained therein, the Commission was informed about EEC/Codex Inter-Secretariat discussions which had taken place since the Commission's last Session. The Commission was informed that in the case of products for which there were Codex standards but no EEC Directives, the EEC had agreed to approach the Member States of the Community to ascertain whether they had any national legislation governing these products. In connection with this undertaking, the EEC had indicated that it wished to receive from the Codex Secretariat an order of priorities for the commodities to be looked into. It was hoped that when the EEC had collected all the responses from the Member States of the Community, it might be in a position to advise the Codex Secretariat of what products in conformity with Codex standards could be distributed freely within the Community, always subject to the provisions of the EEC Directives on food labelling and additives.
21. The Commission was also informed that the EEC/Codex Inter-Secretariat discussions had also dealt with the fundamental question of to what extent it might be possible to bring the EEC position in the field of food safety e.g. its maximum limits for pesticide residues and other contaminants and its provisions on food additives into closer harmony with the worldwide standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, in the interest of facilitating worldwide trade and, especially, exports from developing countries. The Commission was further informed that these discussions were ongoing.
22. The Secretariat informed the Commission that it hoped to hold similar discussions with the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) and possibly with other economic groupings.
23. The Secretariat informed the Commission that since the time of the publication of document ALINORM 83/2 the following countries had indicated their positions with regard to acceptance of the standards and maximum limits for pesticide residues:
Bahrain, Cameroon, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Finland,
Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Kenya, Mexico, South Africa, Tanzania and Thailand.
24. The Secretariat furnished the Commission with a verbal résumé of each response from the countries listed above. The Commission was informed that these replies would be published in due course. The Commission was pleased to note that the above responses were mainly positive.
25. The Delegation of Japan stated that it would be difficult for Japan to take immediate action at present regarding acceptances of Codex standards and Codex maximum limits for pesticide residues. Products in conformity with Codex standards and maximum limits for pesticide residues could be distributed freely in Japan, provided they also complied with the relevant Japanese requirements. Concerning date marking, the date of manufacture had to be declared in Japan instead of the date of minimum durability as favoured by Codex. Also only those food additives which appeared in the Japanese official list would be permitted in foods in Japan. The Delegation of Japan expressed its readiness to make further efforts to advance the acceptances of the Codex standards and the maximum limits for pesticide residues.
26. The Delegation of the USA indicated that in addition to the information contained in ALINORM 83/2, the USA had completed action on another 33 standards. The USA hoped to be in a position to announce completion of action on all standards, in due course.
27. The Delegation of Sweden stated that it had been decided, in principle, to accept 5 standards for quick frozen fish and the standards for canned pineapple and canned peaches. Also it had been decided, in principle, to put forward proposals for the acceptance of the maximum limits for pesticide residue contained in the 4th, 5th and 6th series. Sweden hoped to be in a position to carry out the above intended action before the next session of the Commission.
28. The Delegation of Switzerland stated that it was not yet in a position to accept the standards because of certain legal difficulties. Switzerland preferred to think in terms of free distribution of products in conformity with certain Codex standards. The Delegation of Switzerland recalled that on June 6, 1978 it had announced that 35 products for which there were Codex standards would be permitted free entry into Switzerland. The Delegation of Switzerland thought that the situation in regard to maximum limits for pesticide residues was more complex, since the maximum limits would have to apply to indigenous as well as imported products.
29. The Delegation of Portugal referred to the position of Portugal as stated in paragraph 8 of document ALINORM 83/2. Portugal hoped to be able to give a definitive acceptance before too long.
30. The Delegation of Brazil indicated that in Brazil an Inter-Ministerial Committee had been established to strengthen participation in Codex work. The Delegation of Brazil stated that this action had been taken, because of the interest of Brazil in the work of the Commission. The Delegation of Brazil stated that in the past 20 years the recommendations of the Commission had played an important role in public health and trade. The Inter-Ministerial Committee would prepare guidelines for adoption of Codex standards and other recommendations and Brazil had decided to intensify its participation in Codex activities.
31. The Delegation of Poland stated that the Codex standards were being examined in Poland and expressed the hope that it would be possible to accept most of them with specified deviations.
32. The Delegation of Thailand stated that the Codex standards were being considered in Thailand, with the hope that it would be possible to accept most of them. In Thailand the date of manufacture was used and not the date of minimum durability as recommended by Codex. Thailand was also awaiting the outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Pesticide Residue Problems in Developing Countries.
33. The Delegation of Hungary stated that many of the maximum limits for pesticide residues would be acceptable to Hungary. Hungary would be indicating its official position on this matter to the Codex Secretariat in due course.
34. The Delegation of Australia indicated that in Australia food legislation was a matter for each state rather than a national matter. This had presented difficulties from the point of view of Australia notifying formal acceptance of the Codex standards. Efforts were underway to determine how a uniform Australian position could be arrived at in spite of the difficulties presented by the fact that legislation on food standards was the prerogative of each state.
35. The Delegation of Argentina had sent to the Secretariat 71 decisions on Codex standards and Codes of Practice. Argentina was also looking into the question of what differences there might be between Codex methods of analysis and its own methods of analysis, and when this study had been completed the Codex Secretariat would be informed. Other Codex standards were also being examined in Argentina, particularly standards for dairy products. Argentina hoped to be able to send to the Secretariat another 29 decisions by the end of this year relating to processed fruits and vegetables, fruit juices and cheeses, making a total of 100 decisions. The Delegation of Argentina indicated that it had not had time to respond to Mr. Kermode's recent letter on the subject of acceptances. The position of Argentina was as follows. Where Argentina had given acceptances with specified deviations, those deviations would have to be met. Products which were in conformity with Codex standards could enter Argentina, only if they also met the Argentinian requirements. Concerning the maximum limits for pesticide residues, the Delegation of Argentina indicated that there had been some recent amendments to its plant protection law.
36. The Delegation of Yugoslavia stated that Codex standards and Codex maximum limits for pesticide residues had been taken into account in Yugoslavia in the development of Yugoslavian national standards. The Delegation stated that, in principle, Yugoslavia accepted Codex maximum limits for pesticide residues, even if, at times, some maximum limits might not be acceptable.
37. The Delegation of India drew the attention of the Commission to the views of the WHO Executive Board on the subject of acceptances. These views were set out in para. 28 of document ALINORM 83/2. The Delegation of India stated that where countries were unable to accept Codex standards they should state the reasons for non-acceptance, because it was important to know why the standards were not accepted. The Delegation of India thought the Commission should consider why the number of acceptances received to-date was less than might reasonably have been hoped for. The Delegation thought that maximum limits for pesticide residues should take account of data supplied by developing countries and that FAO and WHO should assist in generating such data. The Delegation of India stressed the importance of persuading the developed countries which had been mainly responsible for the development of the standards of the need for them to give a lead to other countries, particularly developing countries, in order to obtain more acceptances of the standards.
38. The Delegation of the USSR stated that although the USSR had not accepted any Codex standards, their importance was recognized in the USSR. In the food additives field, and in the food labelling field, the requirements of the USSR differed somewhat from the Codex recommendations. Also there would be some difficulty in accepting the Codex maximum limits because the USSR had its own national limits.
39. The Delegation of Spain indicated that a new law on pesticides was about to be passed in Spain. This meant that there would be new limits for maximum residue limits in various food products. In the establishment of these new limits particular attention would be paid to the Codex recommendations. The Delegation of Spain stated that it hoped to be able to give a favourable response to many of the Codex standards, but such a response would have to await Spain's becoming a Member of the EEC.
40. The Delegation of Czechoslovakia stated that most Codex standards were acceptable in Czechoslovakia, even if no formal acceptances of the standards had been notified as yet. Czechoslovakia was preparing its position in respect of each Codex standard and hoped that by the end of the year it would be in a position to communicate its position to the Codex Secretariat.
41. The Delegation of Canada stated that it had forwarded comments to the Secretariat on 22 June 1983 in which more acceptances had been notified for standards for milk products and standards for processed meat products. Canada hoped to be able to notify further acceptances later.
42. The Delegation of New Zealand stated that New Zealand was examining the Codex standards and hoped to convey a positive response before the next session of the Commission.
43. The Delegation of Mexico stated that it had given to the Secretariat a paper setting out Mexico's position on acceptances. Mexico intended to set up a national Codex Committee, for the purposes of looking into the possibility of giving acceptances to Codex standards.
44. The Delegation of the Philippines stated that it was in the process of making an evaluation of the different Codex standards. The Philippines was looking at the Codex Standard for Irradiated Foods and would inform the Secretariat in due course whether the standard was acceptable. The Delegation of the Philippines thought the Guidelines on the Labelling of Food Additives contained in Volume VI of the Codex Alimentarius were acceptable in principle. The policy in the Philippines was to permit entry of products in conformity with Codex standards and Philippine law.
45. The Delegation of Senegal stated that the position of Senegal as regards Codex standards had been made known at the last session of the Coordinating Committee for Africa. Senegal was making use of Codex standards and hoped to be able to notify its position formally on acceptances of the standards before very long.
46. The Observer from the EEC referred to the information contained in document ALINORM 83/2 regarding the path the EEC intended to follow on acceptances. The EEC Observer stated that the EEC preferred to think in terms of acceptability of a product rather than of a standard. The EEC did not exclude formal acceptance, but preferred the free distribution idea. The Observer from the EEC stated that the communication setting out the EEC position on fruit juices contained some differences from the corresponding Codex standards which could not properly be classified as deviations. He stated that the Codex Secretariat had been requested to indicate those products where reaction of Community States was considered important. In connection with the idea of free entry, the Observer from the EEC also invited suggestions from delegates in this regard.
47. The Commission acknowledged that some countries faced particular legal difficulties in accepting standards and maximum limits for pesticide residues, but encouraged such countries to try to overcome these difficulties in the interest of facilitating international trade. The Commission considered that especially those countries which had participated in the development of Codex standards should, in the first place, give a lead to others, in order to encourage a wider degree of acceptances of the standards.
48. The Commission welcomed the steps being taken in the EEC with regard to Codex standards. The Commission thought that the EEC should try to give formal acceptance to as many standards as possible, but recognized that where this was not possible a declaration of free entry would be very useful in the interest of international trade. The Commission endorsed the view of the Executive Committee as regards the importance it attached to formal acceptance.
49. The Commission requested the Secretariat to continue its drive on acceptances. It also urged the Secretariat to continue its discussion with the EEC, and initiate discussions with CMEA and other economic groupings, if appropriate. The Commission expressed the hope that by the next session of the Commission more countries would have accepted many more of the Codex standards and maximum limits for pesticide residues.
50. The Commission had before it ALINORM 83/5 which was introduced by the Secretariat. The Commission noted that this paper had been reviewed by the Executive Committee at its 30th Session (ALINORM 83/4, paras 4–5). The Commission was informed by the Secretariat that it was expected that the Commission's programme of activities would be fully accommodated within the budget ceiling for 1982/83. The Commission was also informed that on the basis of the likely programme of Codex Sessions in 1984/85 and the expected overall workload in the biennium the budget proposals for 1984/85 with cost increases to be added, would enable the programme to proceed satisfactorily throughout the 1984/85 biennium. The Commission was informed by the Secretariat that it expected to be able to assist more materially, within the overall limits of its budget, the hosting of Regional Codex Coordinating Committees by developing countries in 1984/85.
51. The Commission expressed its appreciation to the Directors-General of FAO and WHO for making provision within their respective Organizations Programmes of Work and Regular Budgets for 1984/85 to maintain in real terms the level of the Codex budget and for ensuring the smooth continuation of the Commission's activities as had been requested by the Commission at its 14th Session.
