104. The Committee had before it the report of the last session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (ALINORM 83/22). Specific items which required further action were outlined in ALINORM 83/21.
105. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. R.H. McKay (Canada), introduced the report. He informed the Commission that considerable changes and adjustments had been made to the revised text of the General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods (Appendix VI) as well as to Draft Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (Appendix IV) which had to be referred back to Member Governments. The two documents had, therefore, not been advanced to Step 8. In fact, the next session of the Committee had been extended to an eight-day session (12–21 October 1983) to enable the Committee to finalize the two texts and advance them to Step.8.
106. The Chairman of the Commission emphasized the importance especially of the General Standard, for the work on all Codex standards and urged the Committee to conclude these two above items as soon as possible.
107. Mr. McKay also gave an overview on the status of endorsements of labelling provisions in certain Codex standards at Steps 5 to 8 and indicated that further action had to be taken on a number of matters outlined below.
108. The above guidelines had been before the Committee for some time. The 15th Session had decided that, since the guidelines were closely related to the revision of the General Standards for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods, these guidelines should be placed in the Step Procedure and developed simultaneously with the revised text of the General Standard (para. 163, ALINORM 83/22).
109. The 29th Session of the Executive Committee had agreed to regard the guidelines as being at Step 5 subject to confirmation by the Commission (paragraphs 138–139, ALINORM 83/3). Consequently, comments on the Guidelines at Step 6 had been requested by CL 1982/31.
110. A number of delegations reiterated their opinion, expressed at several previous sessions of the Committee, that there appeared to be no need to regulate at an international level the labelling of non-retail containers which were mainly intended for food manufacturers. Furthermore, it was not clear which other types of containers were to be covered by those guidelines. In many cases, the final destination of the products was not known and the requirements for labelling might, therefore, differ. They suggested that the Labelling Committee should clarify the exact scope of these guidelines.
111. Some delegations, while agreeing in principle with the opinion expressed above, felt that the most important provisions of the present guidelines could be included in some way in the General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods; this referred also to products for re-packaging at the point of sale.
112. Other delegations held the view that the guidelines as presently drafted were acceptable and necessary to provide a model for rules to assist small manufacturers in complying with the detailed requirements for the labelling of pre-packaged foods.
113. One delegation drew attention to Section 1 - Scope - of the General Labelling Standard which included reference to the above guidelines. The fact that the Guidelines for the Labelling of Non-Retail Containers had been proceeded with showed that the majority of delegations to the Labelling Committee had been in favour of the development of such guidelines. It was also pointed out that the Commission was lately developing more standards for semi- and unprocessed products and furthermore, several Committees had already included provisions for non-retail containers in their standards; therefore, provision for the labelling of non-retail containers was gaining greater importance in the Codex framework.
114. In conclusion, the Commission agreed that further work on the Draft Guidelines on the Labelling of Non-retail Containers at Step 5 should be suspended until the real need for such guidelines had been demonstrated. In the light of this decision, the Commission advised the Labelling Committee to review that part of Section 1 - Scope - of the General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods which referred to non-retail containers.
Matters Arising from the Report of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling
115. The Commission noted the wish of the Labelling Committee also to review, amend where necessary and endorse labelling provisions in guidelines and codes of practice.
116. The Commission agreed that clause (b) should read as follows:
- To consider, amend if necessary, and endorse draft specific provisions on labelling prepared by the Codex Committees drafting standards, codes of practice and guidelines.
117. The Committee on Labelling had been of the opinion that certain provisions in the revised text of the General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods and other texts such as the Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling, were also applicable to advertising, i.e. provisions which regulated certain aspects of labelling, including claims and nutritional labelling, could apply to the label as such as well as to certain promotional material. The Committee was not certain whether its mandate extended to advertising through electronic and mass media and wished to be advised on this matter. The Committee had, meanwhile, included in its future work programme the development of guidelines on advertising.
118. The Commission was requested to confirm that clause (d) of the terms of reference, which reads as follows:
“To study problems associated with the advertisement of food with particular reference to claims and misleading descriptions”.
entitled the Committee to deal with advertising.
119. The Chairman of the Commission proposed that clause (d) might be amended by deleting the part of the sentence after “food”. However, the Commission confirmed that clause (d) covered advertising, and recommended to the Labelling Committee to consider whether the above amendment proposed by the Chairman was considered to be necessary.
120. There was considerable discussions whether guidelines for advertising should be elaborated by the Committee on Labelling and, in particular, whether it was within the remit of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to advise on advertising matters which went beyond the accompanying material or appeared on the label of the food, for instance, advertising by electronic and mass media. Several delegations felt that this should be left to national authorities. The Delegation of India expressed the view that such advertising was done on a multi-national scale and that the definition of advertising should include mass media and electronic systems. It was concluded that the advice of FAO and WHO Legal Counsels should be sought on this question and referred to the Codex Committee on Labelling for further consideration.
121. The Chairman of the Committee reminded the Commission that many years ago, the Labelling Committee had considered an extensive paper on advertising including a draft guideline. At that time, the Committee had limited itself to establishing general principles on advertising (para. 33, ALINORM 72/22). It was now proposed that this paper be updated and extended to cover the more recent forms of advertising as well as to contain clear proposals for the scope of the proposed guidelines on advertising.
122. The Commission agreed that, based on a joint legal opinion provided by FAO/WHO and on an updated version of the paper noted in para. 121, the Codex Committee on Food Labelling should give further consideration to the subject of advertising and report back its findings to the Commission.
123. The Commission noted that the Committee wished to review and possibly revise the above guidelines to include, specifically, more detailed provisions on negative claims which had been considered in connection with the Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (Codex Alimentarius, Vol.VI). The Commission agreed that the Labelling Committee could proceed with the review and revision of the General Guidelines on Claims.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
124. 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.
125. The Commission had before it the reports of the 15th and 16th Sessions of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (ALINORM 83/12 and ALINORM 83/12A with corrigenda to the English version). The reports were introduced by Mr. A. Feberwee (Netherlands), Chairman of the Committee.
126. The Chairman gave an account of the work accomplished by the Committee since the last Session of the Commission and introduced the various standards and codes at Step 8 of the Procedure and also the Specifications for food additives at Step 5. He also introduced the matter arising from the two Reports of the Codex Committee on Food Additives that would be of interest to the Commission.
127. The Commission had before it the above Draft Standard (Appendix XI, ALINORM 83/12A) and the Step 8 amendments as proposed by the European Committee for the Study of Salt, the United Kingdom, Cuba and Italy (LIM.3 and LIM.12).
128. In discussing the standard, the Delegations of Thailand and India proposed that the minimum content of NaCl as contained in clause 3.1 should be reduced, the reason put forward being that purification to a level beyond 96% will increase the cost of production considerably. Several delegations were opposed to the inclusion of the long list of food additives in the standard.
129. Several delegations proposed that the level of cadmium should be reduced from the level of 0.5 to 0.2 mg/kg. The Commission was told that the few samples of salt from Europe for which analyses were available to the Codex Committee on Food Additives contained less than 0.2 mg/kg of cadmium. The Commission, however, felt that this was a technical question and that there was insufficient data available to it on which to base its decision. Some delegations had objections also to the levels of lead and mercury in Food Grade Salt.
130. The Commission, while recognizing that the levels of contaminants should be as low as possible, expressed its opinion that the levels of contaminants should be established only based on supporting data.
Status of the Standard
131. The Commission held the standard at Step 8 and asked: (i) the Codex Committee on Food Additives to re-examine the sections especially on contaminants; and (ii) other relevant Codex Committees to review the sections on labelling, food hygiene and methods of analysis with a view to endorsing them. The Commission would reconsider the standard for adoption at its next session.
132. The Commission urged: (i) such of those Governments which were concerned at the levels of contaminants in the standard to make data on the contaminant content of Food Grade Salt available to the Codex Committee on Food Additives; and (ii) JECFA to reconsider the permissible weekly intakes of cadmium and also other contaminants in the light of newer data.
133. The Commission had before it the above Draft Standard (Appendix IX, ALINORM 83/12A) and the Step 8 amendments as proposed by Norway, Federal Republic of Germany and Italy (ALINORM 83/41 - Part XIII, LIM.2 and LIM.17).
134. The Commission noted that this was only a revision of an existing standard and that the Codex Committee on Food Additives had considered two sets of Government comments before it had advanced the standard to Step 8.
135. As regards clause 2.2, the Commission noted that it should not be construed that every food should be irradiated up to 10 kGy. Much lower levels than 10 kGy could be used for effective irradiation of foods (ALINORM 83/12A, Annex B to Appendix IX).
136. The Commission noted that the word “shall” in clause 3.1 would make it mandatory for all those Member Governments accepting the standard to apply the Codex General Principles of Food Hygiene and Codes of Hygienic Practice to foods that were irradiated. Since the Codes of Practice and Codex General Principles of Food Hygiene had been meant to remain advisory, the Commission agreed that the use of the word “should” would be more appropriate bearing in mind that irradiation should not be used as a substitute for good manufacturing practice.
137. The wholesomeness of foods irradiated up to a maximum absorbed dose of 10 kGy had been clearly established by the FAO/WHO/IAEA Expert Committee (Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods, WHO Technical Report Series No. 659, WHO, Geneva, 1981) and the process of irradiation had been cleared of any microbiological hazards by a meeting of the Board of the International Committee on Food Microbiology and Hygiene of the International Union of Microbiological Sciences held in Copenhagen in 1982 (for details see report CX/FH 83/9).
138. Many countries felt that there was an urgent need for the standard, which they would like to use, and expressed their opinion that the standard should be adopted as a Codex Standard at Step 8.
139. The Delegations of Austria, Federal Republic of Germany and India opposed the omission of Steps 6 and 7 for several reasons, not least of which was that labelling provisions, which were an important aspect of the standard, were still under revision, and, in their opinion, the technological necessity for irradiation of foods had not been sufficiently demonstrated. The Delegation of Italy also requested that, in any case, the treatment by irradiation should be clearly indicated on the label. The Delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that it was against the adoption of the standard, as had been indicated in its written comments.
Status of the Standard
140. The Commission, noting that there had already been two rounds of Government comments, adopted the standard at Step 8 as Codex Standard with the change that in clause 3.1 the word “shall” is replaced by “should”.
141. The Delegations of Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany expressed their reservations.
Status of the Code
142. The Commission, noting that there had also been two rounds of Government comments, adopted the Revised Code of Practice for the Operation of Radiation Facilities for the Treatment of Foods, as contained in Appendix IX, ALINORM 83/12A at Step 8. The Delegations of Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany expressed their reservations.
143. The Commission adopted the specifications in categories I and II of Appendix X, ALINORM 83/12 and Appendix XII of ALINORM 83/12A at Step 8 as advisory texts not subject to acceptance.
144. The Commission noted that it had discussed the status and safety aspects of food additive specifications at its last (14th) Session (ALINORM 81/39, paragraphs 201–205) and had agreed with the conclusion of the Codex Committee on General Principles that the specifications per se were advisory and not subject to government acceptance but, however, had 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 guidance from JECFA and CCFA was available.
145. The views expressed by CCFA at its 15th Session and JECFA at its 26th Session on the status and safety of Codex specifications were sent to Governments by CL 1982/42-FA for comments and an analysis of the replies received from Australia, Spain, United Kingdom and the European Economic Community, documented in ALINORM 83/11 and ALINORM 83/11 Addenda 1 and 2 had shown that they were in complete agreement with the views of CCFA and JECFA. The Executive Committee also agreed with the views of CCFA and JECFA (ALINORM 83/4, paragraphs 26–29).
146. The Commission, having noted the agreement of the Executive Committee and the different Governments that responded to the Circular Letter 1982/42-FA to the views of CCFA and JECFA, agreed that:
Codex Specifications are advisory and not subject to Government acceptance, and
Food Grade Quality is achieved by compliance with the specifications as a whole and not merely with individual criteria in terms of safety.
147. The above decisions of the Commission would be incorporated into the Codex Alimentarius as appropriate.
148. The Commission expressed the opinion that since CCFA reviews and elaborates specifications, they are subject to endorsement even if they are advisory and not subject to acceptance. Thus it did not agree with the CCFA's proposal to amend the format for Codex Commodity Standards as contained in the Procedural Manual of the Codex (see ALINORM 83/12, Appendix X, paragraph 8).
149. The Commission
noted that the countries which had responded to the CL 1982/42 and the Executive Committee at its 30th Session (ALINORM 83/4) were in complete agreement with the modified procedure proposed by CCFA for the elaboration of Codex Specifications (ALINORM 83/12, Appendix X, Annex 1),
) recognized the principle that CCFA was the final authority to recommend specifications to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption, and
i) adopted the modified procedure as a legal text.
150. The modified procedure which is given below will now replace the existing procedure for elaboration of Codex Specifications as laid down in page 40 of the English version of the 5th edition of the Procedural Manual.
Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Advisory Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives 1
Step 1: The Secretariat distributes the specifications, when available from the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and requests comments from Governments and interested international organizations.
Step 2: The Secretariat forwards any comments received to the Codex Committee on Food Additives. The specifications are considered, in the light of these comments, by the Codex Committee on Food Additives. Specifications not considered to be suitable for adoption by the Commission are referred to JECFA, together with government comments and the views of CCFA, for expert advice or revision if appropriate. If the JECFA specifications are still not considered suitable they may be modified by CCFA.
Step 3: Specifications which, in the opinion of the Codex Committee on Food Additives, are suitable for final adoption as Codex Advisory Specifications for Food Additives, are submitted to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption. Specifications shall not be subject to Government acceptance.
151. The Commission decided not to remove the word “Advisory” from the title since, unlike Codex Codes of Practice, it was not sufficiently understood that codex specifications are advisory.
Other Matters Arising from the Reports of the 15th and 16th Sessions of the Committee
152. The Commission had before it ALINORM 83/21 containing other matters arising from the Reports of the 15th and 16th Sessions of the Committee, which were of interest to the Commission.
153. The Commission agreed with CCFA that the Codex General Principles for the Use of Food Additives (CAC Procedural Manual 4th edition, page 19 of English version) and paragraph 13b of the Guidelines for Codex Commodity Committees Concerning Food Additives (Procedural Manual, 5th edition) contained all the information which was needed by Codex Commodity Committees in establishing food additive provisions in Codex Standards and that there was no need to elaborate separate Guidelines for Commodity Committees to establish food additive provisions for the Commodity Standards. Any further guidance addressing the questions need not be subjected to formal procedures in their elaboration and should be regarded as an internal document for use by the Codex Committees concerned.
154. The Commission also agreed that Guidance to Codex Commodity Committees concerning the establishment of provisions for food additives (ALINORM 83/12A, Appendix IV) be included in both the Procedural Manual and the Codex Alimentarius and brought to the attention of Codex Commodity Committees and their Chairmen, Codex Contact Points and other interested bodies.
1 Formerly known as Codex Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives.
155. The Commission agreed with the action taken by CCFA (ALINORM 83/12A, para.111) to change the endorsement status of certain food additives to be in line with their revised ADI status.
156. The Commission noted that the Codex Committees on Food Additives, Meat Hygiene and Pesticide Residues had discussed the need to consider the question of residues in foods of various chemicals arising from their use in animal husbandry and veterinary medicine. The Commission examined the views of the Executive Committee as to what mechanisms would be required to handle this subject within the Codex.
157. Whilst recognizing that the terms of reference of the CCFA would cover the matter of residues in food of chemicals used in animal husbandry and veterinary medicine, the Commission was of the opinion that it would probably overload the programme of work of the CCFA, which was already very heavy, if the Committee was to embark on the consideration of these matters. Furthermore, because of the complexity and special nature of the subject, the Commission felt that a review of the subject and advice as to how the Codex Alimentarius should handle the subject could not be satisfactorily undertaken by a single consultant as had been suggested by the CCFA.
158. The Commission was of the opinion that the subject was urgent and timely and favoured the suggestion of the Executive Committee that the subject should first be examined by a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation and that the recommendations of the consultation might then be considered by the Commission and be acted upon by a newly established Codex Committee, if appropriate.
159. The Commission requested the Secretariat to take any preliminary steps necessary to enable the setting up of a new Codex Committee should this be decided by the Commission at its 16th Session.
160. The Delegations of Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany indicated their willingness to sympathetically examine hosting of a new Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food, if established.
161. The Delegation of the Netherlands emphasized that the consumer protection aspects, in addition to safety, would be an important part of the terms of reference for the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation.
162. The Commission requested the Secretariat to arrange for an FAO/WHO Expert Consultation at an early date and for its recommendations and report to be distributed to members of the Commission. The Commission further requested the Secretariat, in order to facilitate the setting up of a new Codex Committee if required, to approach the Host Government of the Codex Committee on Meat which had been adjourned sine die and had not met for at least ten years to agree to its abolition.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
163. 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.
164. The Commission had before it the reports of the 13th and 14th Sessions of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (ALINORM 83/24 and Add.1 and ALINORM 83/24A and Add.1). It also had before it a document (ALINORM 83/24 Add.2) prepared by the Secretariat to assist the Commission in its deliberations and a list of recommendations of the Committee on behalf of the Working Group on Pesticide Residue Problems in Developing Countries (ALINORM 83/24 Add.3). Amendments proposed to maximum residue limits (MRLs) at Steps 5 and 8 were contained in documents ALINORM 83/14 - Part VII, LIM.7(PR) and LIM.15(PR).
165. The reports were introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Ir. A.J. Pieters, who pointed out that participation in the Committee was increasing indicating that pesticide residues in food continued to arouse public interest. There was a need to respect the Good Agricultural Practices of countries producing the foods to which the pesticides were applied. He drew the attention of the Commission to the recommendations of the Working Group on Pesticide Residue Problems in Developing Countries. Work on the harmonization of pesticide residue limits did not only involve agreement on numerical figures but also on other aspects, such as methods of analysis, definition of the portion of the food to which the limits applied and other such matters.
166. The Chairman of the Committee stressed the need for the Governments to accept the responsibility of making the necessary administrative and legal arrangements to accept the recommendations of the Commission in the field of pesticide residues in food. This was the only way to justify the expenditure of the effort in arriving at recommendations for safe limits for pesticide residues in food.
167. Before embarking on a discussion of these MRLs, the Commission decided to address the problem of the establishment of temporary MRLs and the withdrawal of Codex MRLs where ADIs had been withdrawn by the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues.
168. The Commission was informed about the recommendation of the Committee that, in the future, temporary MRLs should not be submitted to the Commission for adoption at Step 8. The Commission concurred with this recommendation of the Committee. As regards the question of what action should be taken concerning the withdrawal of Codex MRLs or Codex temporary MRLs, where ADIs had been withdrawn, the Commission concurred with the recommendation of the 30th Session of the Executive Committee that this matter be examined by FAO and WHO so that policy guidance could be offered to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues and also to the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues so that a mechanism for dealing with such situations could be worked out. The Commission agreed to consider this question at its next Session. The Delegation of Thailand was of the opinion that this matter should also be considered by the Coordinating Committees.
169. As regards the existing temporary Codex MRLs or Codex MRLs which might become temporary as a result of decisions of the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues, the Commission agreed that such temporary Codex MRLs should continue to be listed in the Codex Alimentarius pending clarification of the toxicological status of the pesticide.
170. The Commission noted that a number of pesticides for which MRLs had been submitted by the Committee at Step 8 (and Step 5 with the omission of Steps 6 and 7) had been given temporary ADIs by recent Sessions of the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues. It was decided that the MRLs of these pesticides (see ALINORM 83/24A Add. 2) should not be sent to Governments for acceptance, i.e. should not be included in the Codex Alimentarius, after their adoption by the Commission at Step 8. As soon as the temporary MRLs were converted by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues into MRLs on the advice of the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues, the Secretariat should include the MRLs in the Codex Alimentarius.
171. The Commission proceeded to discuss the MRLs contained in the above Appendices, in the light of ALINORM 83/24A, Corrigendum, and in the light of proposed amendments contained in the documents indicated in paragraph 164 above.
172. Prior to the discussion of the various pesticides, some Members of the Commission stated that their position concerning the acceptance of Codex maximum residue limits adopted by the Commission would depend on consideration concerning toxicological aspects of residues, the good agricultural practices and dietary habits prevailing in their countries. This was essential to safeguard the population in respect of toxic residues present in staple foods.
173. The Delegation of Switzerland drew attention to the continued use of technical HCH instead of lindane. This did not represent Good Agricultural Practice as the technical material contained inactive isomers of dubious safety. The Secretariat pointed out that this matter had been discussed by the Codex Committee and represented a problem which ought to be seen in relation to technical and economic assistance to developing countries.
174. The Delegation of Canada indicated that certain pesticides based on unreliable toxicological data were under study in that country and that MRLs for such pesticides would not be accepted by Canada until the matter had been clarified on the basis of suitable replacement studies.
175. A number of delegations stated that they had objections with regard to some of the proposed limits and that they had presented written comments on this matter.
176. Following discussion of the individual pesticides, the Commission decided as follows (following correction on the basis of ALINORM 83/24A Corrigendum):
| Code No. | Pesticide | Reference | Decision of the Commission |
| 037 | fenitrothion | } }Appendix VII, ALINORM 83/24A } } | } }Held at Step 8 (see para 170 } } |
| 081 | chlorothalonil | ||
| 089 | sec. butylamine | ||
| 091 | cyanofenphos | ||
| 095 | acephate | ||
| 057 | paraquat | Appendix X, ALINORM 83/24A | |
| 011 | carbophenothion | } }Appendix VII, ALINORM 83/24 } | |
| 048 | lindane | ||
| 074 | disulfoton | Adopted at Step 8 as Codex MRLs. | |
| 096 | carbofuran | ||
| 097 | cartap | ||
| 099 | edifenphos | ||
| 004 | bromophos | } }Appendix X, ALINORM 83/24A } | |
| 008 | carbaryl | ||
| 011 | carbophenothion | Adopted by the MRL of 2 mg/kg for citrus fruit as Codex MRL. All others returned to Step 7. | |
| 016 | chlorobenzilate | } } }Appendix X, ALINORM 83/24A } } | Adopted at Step 8 as Codex MRLs (DDT, temporary limits pending further residue data) |
| 020 | 2,4-D | ||
| 021 | DDT | ||
| 022 | diazinon | ||
| 031 | diquat | ||
| 039 | fenthion | }Returned to Step 7. Adopted at Step 8 as Codex MRLs. } | |
| 048 | lindane | ||
| 074 | disulfoton | ||
| 076 | thiometon | }Appendix X, ALINORM 83/24A } } } } } | Advanced to Step 6. |
| 085 | fenamiphos | Adopted at Step 8 as Codex MRLs | |
| 090 | chlorpyriphos-methyl | ||
| 103 | phosmet | Adopted at Step 8 except forage crops which was returned to Step 7. | |
| 109 | fenbutatin oxide | Adopted at Step 8 as Codex MRLs | |
| 114 | guazatine | ||
| 117 | aldicarb | Adopted at Step 8 as Codex MRLs except bananas advanced to Step 6. | |
| 121 | 2,4,5-T | Advanced to Step 6. | |
| 101 | pirimicarb | beans, 1 mg/kg | Agreed to submit to Governments for acceptance (para. 136 ALINORM 83/24A). |
177. The following statements were made in connection with some of the pesticides discussed above:
011 carbophenothion - The Delegation of Switzerland, supported by the Observer from the EEC, considered that the use pattern of this pesticide was very wide considering the low ADI.
074 disulfoton - See general statement by some delegations in paragraph 172 of this report.
074 disulfoton - The Delegation of Canada expressed reservations pending questions relating to the toxicity of the pesticide being clarified.
096 carbofuran - The Delegation of Canada, supported by the Delegation of France, indicated their reservations pending the results of further toxicological studies being evaluated.
004 bromophos - The Delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Italy were of the opinion that, in view of the increasing consumption of foods containing bran, the proposed MRL was too high.
011 carbophenothion - Several countries objected to the excessively wide use pattern of this pesticide, in view of the very low ADI. The Secretariat pointed out that actual use patterns, and therefore intake, varied from country to country and that Codex MRLs did not imply a recommendation for use. The Commission requested the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues to re-examine the actual use pattern of this pesticide.
016 chlorobenzilate - The Delegation of Switzerland indicated that there was suspicion of the carcinogenicity of this compound. The Commission requested Switzerland to submit the relevant data to the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues. Several delegations indicated that neither locally produced nor imported foods were ever found to exceed 1 mg/kg. This suggested that the Codex MRLs were too high.
021 DDT - The Delegation of Iran had reservations regarding the MRL for cereal grains. Other delegations indicated that, in view of the severe restrictions of the use of DDT, the setting of Codex MRLs covering wide groups of food did not seem appropriate.
031 diquat - The Delegation of Italy considered the MRL in wheat flour too high.
039 fenthion - The Delegation of Greece, supported by the Observer from the EEC, indicated the need for Codex MRLs for olives and olive oil.
048 lindane - See discussion on use of technical HCH (paragraph 173 of this report).
117 aldicarb - The Delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany was against the MRL for bananas, especially because of some uncertainties in the toxicological evaluation of aldicarb and the consumption of this food by infants and children. Similar remarks were made by the Delegation of Finland. The MRL for bananas was advanced to Step 6 without omitting any steps.
121 2,4,5-T - The Delegation of the USA indicated that it had residue data on cereals and cereal straw. Residues in animal feed could have an effect on other MRLs. The Commission decided not to omit Steps and requested the USA to make the data available to the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues.
178. At its 14th Session, the Commission held the MRLs of certain pesticides at Step 8 of the Procedure pending doubts concerning the reliability of certain toxicological data being clarified by the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (see paragraph (e), ALINORM 83/24A Add. 2). As the matter had been reviewed by the 1981 and 1982 Joint Meetings on Pesticide Residues, the Commission decided to reconsider the MRLs in question. In keeping with the decision concerning temporary MRLs, the Commission decided as follows:
| Pesticide | Reference | Decision |
| 095 acephate | } }ALINORM 81/24-ADD.1 } } | } }Held at Step 8 as temporary MRLs } } |
| 006 captafol | ||
| 007 captan | ||
| 081 chlorothalonil | ||
| 037 fenitrothion | ||
| 100 methamidophos | ||
| 057 paraquat | ||
| 096 carbofuran | } }ALINORM 81/24-ADD.1 }ALINORM 83/24A } | } }Agreed that the MRLs should be included in the Codex Alimentarius } |
| 031 diquat | ||
| 074 disulfoton | ||
| 085 fenamiphos | ||
| 113 propargite | ||
| 098 dialifos | ALINORM 81/24-ADD.1 | To be returned to the CCPR |
179. The Commission had before it proposed amendments, at Steps 5 and 8, as well as non-substantive changes to Codex MRLs contained in Appendix XI to ALINORM 83/24A. It was agreed to consider the amendments in the light of ALINORM 83/24A, Corrigendum and of proposed amendments at Steps 8 contained in ALINORM 83/41 - Part VII, LIM.7 (PR) and LIM.15(PR).
180. The Delegation of India expressed the opinion that it was not appropriate to increased the MRL for fenitrothion in wheat-flour threefold in view of the fact that the ADI of the pesticide had been decreased from 0.005 to 0.001 mg/kg body-weight by the 1982 Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). The Commission also noted the written objection of the Delegations of Czechoslovakia and Finland to increase the MRL for trichlorfon in apples and strawberries, respectively.
181. The Commission reached the following decisions:
All proposed changes marked as being non-substantive were adopted except for the amendment proposed for dichlofluanid in barley, oats, rye and wheat. The latter was considered to be substantive which should follow the amendment procedure (i.e. sent to Governments at Step 3);
the proposed amendments at Step 8 were adopted as Codex MRLs;
the proposed amendments at Step 5 were advanced to Step 6; and
the question whether the Codex MRLs for coumaphos should be converted into Guideline Levels was referred back to the Committee for further consideration in the light of the decision of the Commission, given in paragraph 168 of this report.
182. The Commission noted the corrigenda given in ALINORM 83/24A Add.2 and decided to advance the draft MRLs contained in ALINORM 83/24A Add.1 to Step 6 of the Procedure.
183. The Commission had before it the above document given in Appendix VII to ALINORM 83/24A and proposals for amendments at Step 8 in ALINORM 83/41 - Part VII.
184. The question was raised as to the status of the document in relation to the acceptance procedure. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues expressed the opinion that, as the document would need to be up-dated from time to time, it should not be given such a status as would require lengthy amendment procedures, i.e. should not be subject to formal acceptance by Governments.
185. The Commission endorsed the above document and decided to return to the question of its status at the next Session.
186. The Commission noted the methods of residue analysis recommended by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR), through the Ad Hoc Working Groups on Analysis (ALINORM 83/24 Add.1), and agreed that they represented very useful work which should be continued. It also noted that the methods, up-dated by the 1982 Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, had been Published by GIFAP (Technical Monograph No. 8).
Matters Arising from the Reports of the 13th and 14th Sessions of the Committee
187. It was noted that the questions relating to the elaboration of temporary Codex MRLs and the consequences of the withdrawal of ADIs, or temporary ADIs, as well as the issue relating to chemicals used in mass medication of food-producing animals had been dealt with under earlier agenda items (see paragraphs 156 and 167 of this report).
188. The Commission had before it document ALINORM 83/24A Add.3 prepared by the Secretariat on the request of the 14th Session of the CCPR. The document summarized all previous recommendations of the Ad Hoc Working Group. The Commission noted the request of the Committee that the recommendations should be referred to the interested organizations at the highest possible level. The Secretariat pointed out that both FAO and WHO had responded to the recommendations and several of the recommendations either had been, or would be, implemented.
189. The Delegation of India, supported by the Delegations of Saudi Arabia, Cameroon, Cuba and Kenya, expressed the view that the generation of appropriate residue and other data for pesticides in developing countries represented an important need which could only be achieved through the establishment of the necessary laboratory facilities. Existing projects designed to provide such technical assistance should be promoted and further projects initiated. It was essential that, through assistance, developing countries be in a position to ensure the safe and effective use of pesticides. Recommendation 3 was, therefore, considered to be of particular importance.
190. The Commission endorsed the recommendation of the Committee and of the Ad Hoc Working Group, as contained in ALINORM 83/24 Add. 3 and requested the Secretariat to bring them to the attention of the interested bodies.
191. The Delegation of Sweden informed the Commission that it would distribute to Governments, through the Codex system, copies of a publication entitled “Control of Pesticide Residues in Food - Guide to National Authorities and International Organizations”, prepared by the Swedish National Food Administration.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
192. 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.
193. The Commission had before it the Report of the 18th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (ALINORM 83/13) which was introduced by the rapporteur, Dr. R.W. Weik (USA) who gave a brief review of the current work programme of the CCFH.
194. The Commission noted that the Committee would examine at its next session Annex C of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Processed Meat Products which had been revised at the 16th Session of the Codex Committee on Processed Meat and Poultry Products.
195. It also noted that Section 5.2 - Microbiological Requirements of the Codex European Regional Standard for Natural Mineral Waters required, in the opinion of the Codex Coordinating Committee for Europe and the EEC, further examination. An Ad Hoc Working Group of the Coordinating Committee had proposed amendments to Section 5.2 which would be fully discussed at the next session of the CCFH.
196. Other items to be considered at the 19th Session of the CCFH included a Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for the Salvaging of Damaged Canned Goods and a revision of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Egg Products to include “melange”.
197. The Commission noted that the above Code and Annex had been examined in detail by the CCFH at its 18th Session. In addition, Annex I had been considered by an Ad Hoc Working Group of the CCFH. It also noted that two provisions might be amended as a result of future consideration by other Committees. These were the definitions for “pasteurization” (2.9) and “lot” (7.5.5) which would be discussed at the next sessions of the “Milk Committee” and the CCFH respectively.
Status of the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Dried Milk and Annex I
198. The Commission agreed to adopt the Code of Hygienic Practice for Dried Milk and Annex 1 - Microbiological Criteria for Dried Milk Products at Step 8 of the Procedure, on the understanding that the two definitions mentioned in para. 197 above might require amendment.
199. The Commission noted that the CCFH had made no change to the text which was already adopted at Step 5 at its 14th Session.
200. The Delegation of India referred to several technical matters in provisions which it considered still required examination. The Commission noted that these matters had for the most part been discussed during the elaboration of the Draft Code by the CCFH and decided to make no change to the text. However, it was always open to any country to propose amendments at any time to adopted codes.
Status of the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for the Processing of Frog Legs
201. The Commission decided to adopt the above Code of Hygienic Practice at Step 8 of the Procedure.
202. The Commission noted that the above Draft Code had been discussed and amended by an Ad Hoc Working Group of the CCFH. The Draft Code was now submitted to the Commission at Step 5 for further government comments.
Status of the Proposed Draft Code
203. The Commission decided to advance the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for the Collecting, Processing and Marketing of Natural Mineral Waters to Step 6 of the Procedure.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
204. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the USA.
205. The Commission had before it the report of the 13th Session of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (ALINORM 83/23). The Delegation of Hungary in introducing the report of the Committee, outlined the work accomplished by the 13th Session of the Committee. The wide range of responsibilities of the Committee had necessitated the establishment of two Ad Hoc Working Groups. Apart from its normal function of endorsing and developing Codex methods, the Committee had elaborated General Principles for the Establishment or Selection of Codex Sampling Procedures to serve as a framework for the inclusion of provisions for sampling procedures in Codex Standards. The Committee had also discussed the question of sampling for net weight determination. It had also discussed the obligation falling on governments accepting Codex methods included in Codex standards.
206. The Committee was conscious of its coordination role in the field of analysis and sampling. In order to discharge this responsibility effectively, the Membership of the Interagency Meetings, held in conjunction with Session of the Committee, had been widened. These meetings were proving an effective means of avoiding duplication of work and ensuring cooperation between International Organizations and Codex.
207. The Commission adopted the above General Principles contained in Appendix IV, ALINORM 83/23 for inclusion in the Procedural Manual. The Delegation of Portugal pointed out that there was a need to develop further Codex sampling procedures, involving sampling inspection by variables.
208. As regards the question of obligation falling on Governments in respect of the acceptance of Codex methods included in Codex standards, the Commission concurred with the view of the Committee that Codex Type I (i.e. “defining”) methods should be accepted by Governments together with the provision they defined. This did not mean, however, that Codex defining methods should be used at all times in food control as explained in para (1) of Appendix II to ALINORM 83/23.
209. The Commission also agreed with the Committee's conclusion that Codex Type IV (i.e. “tentative”) methods should not be adopted as Codex methods until the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling had recognized their reliability on the basis of the appropriate Codex criteria. It was noted that the question of obligation falling on Governments in accepting Codex Type II (reference) and Type III (alternative approved) methods was still open.
210. The Commission considered a list of general methods proposed by the Committee for various metallic contaminants such as arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc in the light of proposed amendments at Step 8 (Appendix III, ALINORM 83/23 and ALINORM 83/41 - Part XII).
211. The Delegation of Tanzania made the point that a number of the methods referred to in Codex documents were not readily available and caused difficulties for laboratories, especially in developing countries. The Secretariat informed the Commission that a consultant had been hired to review existing Codex methods. This review included an identification of such methods as mentioned by the Delegation of Tanzania. Following the consultant's report all efforts would be made to ensure that methods included in the Codex Alimentarius by reference, would be available to the interested parties. It was not possible, at this stage, to indicate exactly how this would be achieved.
212. The Commission adopted the General Methods as Type II or III Codex methods as indicated in Appendix III, ALINORM 83/23.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
213. 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.
