85. The Commission had before it a paper on this subject which had been prepared by a Consultant (ALINORM 83/7). In introducing the paper, the Secretariat drew the Commission's particular attention to the summary conclusions contained in paragraph 60 of the paper.
86. The Delegations of Brazil, Cuba, Mexico and New Zealand were in favour of and stressed the need for the development of international standards, for one or more of the reasons given in the paper in favour of developing standards.
87. The Delegation of New Zealand drew attention to a misunderstanding in relation to paragraph 36 of the paper. This related to the statement that “almost all of the importing countries supplying information indicated that international quality standards accepted and uniformily applied would assist international trade in these products”. In the paper, there was the remark that one country - New Zealand - had stated that it did not think so. The Delegation of New Zealand indicated that this statement applied only to imports into New Zealand, but that as New Zealand was developing its horticultural exports, international standards would be of benefit to New Zealand.
88. The Delegation of Australia stated that it supported the idea of international standards, as otherwise regional standards might be developed.
89. The Delegations of the United Kingdom and the USA were opposed to the development of standards for several reasons. The Delegation of the United Kingdom stated that work in this field had been started by the OECD. Of all the countries that had replied to the questionnaire, only six of these could be regarded as exporting developing countries. Standards might be developed which the exporting countries themselves might find difficult to meet. The main constraint to trade cited in the paper - pesticide residue limits - could be dealt with in the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.
90. The Delegation of the USA drew attention to the cost, not alone of developing the standards, but of enforcing them; it also drew attention to the need to avoid any duplication of effort.
91. The Delegation of Switzerland mentioned that the importation of exotic foods was increasing, and that it was desirable to develop for this purpose international standards, but not necessarily in a new Codex Committee. The Delegation of Switzerland thought this work could be done in the UNECE.
92. The Delegations of India, Iraq, Ireland, Netherlands, Senegal, Tanzania, Thailand and Tunisia thought that the time was not yet ripe to make a decision.
93. The Observer from the EEC thought that it was not appropriate for the Codex Alimentarius Commission to start work on the development of standards for exotic fresh fruits and vegetables. This view was shared by the Delegations of Denmark, France and Italy.
94. In view of the divergence of opinion on this subject, and of the fact that most delegations were of the opinion that the time was not yet ripe to reach a decision on this matter, the Commission agreed that it would not take a decision on this matter at this time. The Commission agreed that this matter should be taken up by the Coordinating Committees and that the Secretariat should send out another circular letter with a view to obtaining more responses. The Commission agreed to discuss this matter at its next Session (see also paragraph 544).
95. The Commission had before it document ALINORM 83/8 containing the replies of Thailand and Zambia, and document 83/8-Add.1 containing the reply of Cuba, to circular letters which had been issued by the Secretariat inviting developing countries to indicate whether they were interested in hosting Codex Committee Sessions.
96. The Commission noted that these two documents had been considered by the Executive Committee at its 30th Session (ALINORM 83/4, paragraphs 24–25).
97. The Delegation of Thailand indicated, a propos of what was stated in the report of the Executive Committee, that Thailand would still be interested in hosting the 4th or 5th Session of the Codex Committee on Vegetable Proteins if suitable arrangements could be made with the host country (Canada).
98. The Delegation of Cuba confirmed that Cuba would be interested in hosting a Codex Committee Session.
99. The Delegation of Argentina confirmed that Argentina would be interested in hosting Sessions of the Codex Committee on Food Additives or on Pesticide Residues, or on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes, not forgetting other Codex Committees.
100. The Commission agreed that the Secretariat should continue to see what could be done to help matters in this area.
101. The Commission had before it document ALINORM 83/9 which traced the history of Rule VI.3 from the First Session of the Commission. This paper had been considered by the Executive Committee at its 28th Session (ALINORM 83/3, paragraphs 80–86). The Executive Committee had proposed to amend Rule VI.3, as set out in paragraph 84 of ALINORM 83/3. For easy reference, the text of the proposed amendment of Rule VI.3 was reproduced in ALINORM 83/9-Add.1.
102. The Commission noted that under Rule IV.6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission “The majority of the Members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of making recommendations for amendments to the Statutes of the Commission and of adopting amendments of, or additions to, the present Rules in accordance with Rule XIII.1……”
103. As 122 countries were currently Members of the Commission, the quorum needed to amend the Rules was 62 countries. Since there were not 62 Member Countries represented at the Session, the Commission decided to postpone consideration of this subject until such time as there might be a quorum (see also paragraph 547).
