260. The Commission had before it the Report of the Twelfth Session of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (ALINORM 83/17). The Report was introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Dr. P. Bunyan (United Kingdom). He gave an account of the work accomplished by the Committee since the last session of the Commission and introduced the various standards at Steps 8 and 5 of the Procedure and matters arising from the Report.
261. The Commission had before it the above standard as contained in Appendix III of ALINORM 83/17 and the Step 8 amendments proposed by Switzerland, Norway, France, Federal Republic of Germany and Thailand, as contained in ALINORM 83/41 - Part III and ALINORM 83/41 - Part III, Addendum 1.
262. The Commission noted that this standard covered all margarine-type products with fat contents between 20 percent and 70 percent, other than minarine as defined in the Codex Standard for Minarine (CODEX STAN 135-1981).
Status of the Standard
263. The Commission agreed with the views of several delegations that (i) a real need for such standard as Fat Spreads/Spreadable Table Fats did not exist, (ii) there was no international trade in such products, and (iii) the adoption of the standard would result in proliferation of products with a very wide range of fat which might confuse the consumer. The Commission decided, therefore, not to adopt the standard. The Commission directed the Committee on Fats and Oils not to proceed further with the standard until such a time as a real need was established for such a standard.
264. The Commission had before it the above standards, both at Step 5, as contained in ALINORM 83/17, Appendices IV and V. The above standards related to semi-solid products which consisted of (i) a hydrogenated edible vegetable oil or a blend of edible vegetable oil and fat, or (ii) a hydrogenated edible animal and/or marine oils and fats with or without the addition of vegetable oils and fats.
265. The Delegation of New Zealand strongly opposed the use of the word “ghee”, as ghee was a dairy product and was so defined in the legislation of some countries.
266. Some Delegations commented on such clauses in the standard as (i) Product definition (ii) Slip point (iii) Acid value and (iv) Peroxide value.
267. The Commission did not discuss these comments which were of a technical nature and more appropriate to the Committee: The Commission requested the countries concerned to submit their comments in writing to the Committee on Fats and Oils for discussion at its next (13th) session. The Commission advanced both the standards to Step 6.
268. The Commission had before it the above amendment as contained in ALINORM 83/17, Appendix VI.
269. The Commission noted that there was an urgent need for a standard for edible rapeseed oil, since a considerable amount of international trade in the commodity existed.
270. Several delegations made comments of a technical nature. The Commission did not discuss them. The Commission requested the countries concerned to submit their comments in writing to the Committee on Fats and Oils for discussion at its next (13th) session and advanced the amendment to Step 6.
271. The Commission had before it the above amendment as contained in ALINORM 83/17, Appendix VII.
272. The Delegation of Spain drew the attention of the Commission to certain shortcomings in the Spanish text and agreed to provide a new text to the Secretariat.
273. The Commission was informed that the percentage of saturated fatty acids at position 2 was expressed as a percentage (m/m) of the total fatty acids and directed the Secretariat to correct the present text which was incorrect.
274. The Commission, after noting that the amendment was non-controversial, omitted Steps 6 and 7 as recommended by the CCFO and adopted it at Step 8.
275. The Commission agreed that the existing standard (CODEX STAN 33-1981) should be amended accordingly.
276. The Commission had before it the above amendments as contained in ALINORM 83/17, Appendix II.
277. The Commission, after noting that Amendments 1 and 2 to clauses in the standard concerning Raw Materials and Identity Characteristics were non-controversial, advanced the amendments to Step 6. It noted that there was an error in the text of Amendment 1 and that the word “shall” should be in square brackets.
278. The Commission noted that GLC ranges are essential identity criteria both for raw and refined fats and oils. It noted that there was a need to include GLC ranges in certain earlier standards to bring them into harmony with more recent Codex standards for oils and fats which already contain the GLC ranges. The Commission omitted Steps 6 and 7, as recommended by the CCFO, and adopted the amendment at Step 8.
279. The Commission did not agree to the mandatory character of the GLC ranges (see paragraphs 283 and 284) for fats and oils and agreed that the GLC ranges should be reinstated in the Codex standards only as Guideline levels.
280. It was agreed that a footnote should be included, at an appropriate place, in all the standards for oils and fats to the effect that GLC ranges are not mandatory and are considered as Guideline levels and advisory.
281. India and Iraq had proposed that food colours and food flavours in the Food Additive Provisions in the General Standard for Edible Fats and Oils be deleted. Both India and Iraq put forward health-related problems and possible consumer deception as reasons in support of their amendment.
282. The Commission decided that, as the comments of India and Iraq were technical, the amendments proposed by India and Iraq should be referred to the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils for discussion at its next (13th) session.
Other Matters Arising from the Report of the Twelfth Session
283. The CCFO at its Twelfth Session had asked the Commission to agree with the decision taken by it at its Tenth and Eleventh Sessions that GLC fatty acid ranges should be included in all standards for individual edible fats and oils on a mandatory basis.
284. The Commission recognized (i) that GLC ranges of fats and oils could vary considerably because of genetic manipulation of germ-plasm of oilseeds and (ii) that many of the developing countries might not, for some time to come, have the sophisticated equipment for determination of GLC ranges of fats and oils and trained technicians to handle the equipment. As this could give rise to difficulties for many developing countries, the Commission agreed to view the GLC ranges as being non-mandatory. The Commission agreed, therefore, that the GLC ranges should be considered only as guideline level and recommended that a footnote be included in the standards at an appropriate place to the effect that GLC ranges of fatty acid composition are not mandatory and are considered as guideline levels and advisory.
285. The Commission agreed to the proposal of the Committee to incorporate the revised text on date marking, as shown in paragraph 9 of ALINORM 83/17, in all standards for fats and oils and adopted it as a consequential amendment. While doing so the Commission noted that this provision had been endorsed by the Food Labelling Committee (ALINORM 83/22, paragraph 194).
286. The Codex Committee on Fats and Oils at its Twelfth Session had noted that it had completed the major items of its work and had listed the remaining items of work that would need action from it in Appendix X of its Report (ALINORM 83/17). The Committee had proposed that the Secretariat and Host Government (United Kingdom) should be entrusted with the responsibility of deciding when there was sufficient work on the agenda to warrant convening a further session of the Committee.
287. The Delegation of India proposed that the CCFO should consider elaboration of standards for sal-seed fat and mango-kernel fat in the future since there was a considerable international trade in these commodities.
288. The Commission had before it LIM.18(FO) containing suggestions of the United Kingdom regarding how the remaining items of work on hand could be handled if the Committee adjourned sine die.
289. The Commission agreed that action on all the items of work that would need action by the CCFO could be completed by holding one more session of the Committee. The Commission decided that it would not be advisable to hand over the work to different bodies to complete, as had been suggested in LIM 18, as, by doing this, it might take longer to complete the work to the satisfaction of the Commission.
290. The Commission considered that the work should be completed, to the satisfaction of the Commission, by holding one more session of the Committee. The Commission hoped that the Host Government (United Kingdom) would agree to its request for a further session.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
291. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the United Kingdom.
292. The report of the Committee (ALINORM 83/20) was introduced by Dr. R. Weik of the Delegation of the USA. He outlined the work accomplished by the Committee at its last Session and indicated that the Committee had under consideration a number of products of particular interest to developing countries. It was essential for countries interested in these products to ensure that they participate fully in the development and discussion of the draft standards concerned.
293. The Commission considered the draft standard (see Appendix VII, ALINORM 83/20) in the light of proposed amendments at Step 8 (ALINORM 83/41 - Part I and LIM.19 (PFV). It noted that document ALINORM 83/41 - Part I-ADD.1 contained comments attributed to Iraq which should be deleted. The Commission also noted that the draft standard for dates represented the best possible attempt at aligning the UN/ECE and Codex standards.
294. The Delegation of Tunisia, supported by the Delegations of Iran, France and Italy, requested that the maximum moisture content of the cane sugar type variety dates should be raised to 30%. This was necessary since the present maximum level of 26% was not justified and would have a serious negative effect on the export trade of Tunisia in soft dates, such as the Deglet Ennour and Alligh varieties. In the opinion of these delegations, there was no real scientific justification for a maximum moisture content of 26%, since the main factors in the preservation of the aforementioned dates related to a ⅔ to ⅓ sugarmoisture ration.
295. It was pointed out that the question of maximum moisture content of dates had been considered by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables and by the UNECE Group of Experts on Dry and Dried Fruits on several occasions. Following their deliberations, both groups had agreed that for cane-sugar varieties, the maximum moisture content should be 26%.
296. The Delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany and Switzerland expressed the view that the criteria and the draft Codex standard such as those relating to insect damage and mould were not sufficiently strict.
Status of the Standard
297. Opinion was divided as to whether the draft standard for dates should be returned for further comments. The Commission agreed that the draft standard should be held at Step 8 of the Procedure and requested the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables to reconsider the question relating to moisture content, in relation to the economic impact the provision for 26% is having on trade. The Delegation of Tunisia was requested to make available all the necessary information to the Committee. On the suggestion of the Delegation of France, the Commission also requested the Committee to consider the possible inclusion of products coated with glucose in the standard. The UN/ECE was requested to suspend discussion of its standard for dates until the Codex has reached a final decision on the matter. The Observer from the Arab Organization for Standardization and Metrology (ASMO) stated that the ASMO Technical Committee on Food Standards, which represented the views of 22 Arab countries, had approved the Draft Codex Standard for Dates at Step 8, except for the maximum moisture content for all varieties of dates, which should be raised from 26% to 30%.
Status of the Standard
298. The Commission decided to advance the above draft standard contained in Appendix VIII to ALINORM 83/20 to Step 6 of the Codex Procedure.
299. The Delegation of Greece expressed its opposition to the amendment. In its opinion the effectiveness of the control in the existing plants is already considered to be inadequate and the amendment would reduce this further.
300. The Commission decided to advance the proposed amendments contained in Appendix IX to ALINORM 83/20 to Step 6 of the Procedure.
301. The Commission agreed that the Procedure for the Amendment of Codex standards be continued in respect of Styles (App.II), Packing Media (App.III), Date Marking (App.IV) and Methods of Analysis (App.VI) as given in ALINORM 83/20. The Delegation of the USA expressed the opinion that date marking of processed fruits and vegetables (which were stable products) should be approached on a product by product basis. The Commission requested the Committee to consider this matter.
302. The Commission agreed that the Procedure for the Amendment of the above standard be continued in respect of: (a) the question of the use of the designation “fruit cocktail” as an alternative to the designation “salad” (a term which did not convey the appropriate meaning to consumers in certain countries); and (b) the extension of the list of fruits (see ALINORM 83/21).
303. The Commission also agreed with the recommendation of the Committee that there should be no change to the Codex standard for Fruit Cocktail and that there was no need to embark on the elaboration of a standard for fruit mix, not covered by the Codex standards for fruit cocktail or tropical fruit salad (see ALINORM 83/21).
Confirmation of the Chairmanship of the Committee
304. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the USA.
305. The Commission had before it the Report of the Fifteenth Session of the Group of Experts (ALINORM 83/14) and document ALINORM 83/41-Part II, containing the comments of governments on the Draft Standards and Proposed Draft Standards under consideration.
306. The Report of the Group of Experts was introduced by its Chairman, Prof. Dr. W. Pilnik (Netherlands), who noted the increased interest in the Group, particularly by developing countries, and the greater number of participants at the last session. Prof. Dr. Pilnik also referred to the ongoing work of the Group of Experts on the definition of fruit juices, taking into account changing technologies, contaminants, and the Working Group on Methods of Analysis and Sampling chaired by Prof. H. Woidich (Austria).
307. In considering the adoption of this draft standard the Commission noted the fact that the old Section 1.2.2 was still included in the French and Spanish versions of the text and should be deleted in conformity with the decision of the Group. It was also noted that the Committee on Food Additives had endorsed the addition of stannous chloride as a food additive, and had also endorsed the maximum level of tin as a contaminant at 250 mg/kg.
308. In regard to labelling, the Commission was informed that the Committee on Food Labelling had requested the Group of Experts to reconsider the section on “Date Marking”, and to take into account the position of the Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables on this matter. The Commission, noting that the Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables was being requested to reconsider the question of date marking on canned foods, referred this matter back to the Committee on Food Labelling for re-consideration of the status of endorsement.
309. In considering the draft standard at Step 8, the Commission noted the reservations of Austria, Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland on the maximum concentration of tin as a contaminant. The Delegation of Switzerland also drew the attention of the Commission to the recent deliberations of JECFA concerning tin. The Delegation of India referred to the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Working Group established within the Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables which had proposed that a maximum level of 250 mg/kg of tin should be adopted for all canned fruits and vegetables.
310. The Delegation of France reserved its position on the use of the food additives, stannous chloride, malic acid and dimethylpolysiloxane. The Delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany informed the Commission that the use of dimethylpolysiloxane was not permitted in that country.
311. The Delegation of Brazil stated that it was not in a position to approve the adoption of the draft standard at Step 8 as this country was currently in the process of considering its own standard for this product.
Status of the Standard
312. The Commission noted the above points of view, and adopted at Step 8 the Draft Standard for Concentrated Pineapple Juice Preserved Exclusively by Physical Means.
313. The Chairman of the Group of Experts, in introducing this draft standard to the Commission, referred to arguments against its adoption outlined in ALINORM 83/41-Part II. He referred, however, to the problem that arose due to the exclusive nature of Codex standards, and to the parallel case of the standards for Grape Juice and for Sweetened Labrusca-type Grape Juice. He also noted that the Commission had agreed that the standard was of particular importance to developing countries, and had endorsed the progress of the draft standard by advancing it to Step 6 at the last session (see ALINORM 81/39, paragraphs 373–374). The Chairman also noted, in response to the written comment of the Federal Republic of Germany, that the maximum level of sulphur dioxide given in the draft standard was a residual level, and that the text should be amended accordingly.
314. In considering this draft standard, the Commission noted the opposition expressed by the Delegations of Austria, Belgium, Brazil, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom to its adoption. It also noted the opposition expressed by the Observer of the European Economic Community. The Delegation of Sweden reserved its position on the maximum level of tin permitted in the standard.
Status of the Standard
315. The Commission noting these opinions, but also taking into account the position of other delegations which spoke in favour of the standard, and the fact that several developing countries were very interested in having such a standard, adopted at Step 8 the Draft Standard for Concentrated Pineapple Juice with Preservatives for Manufacturing.
316. The Observer of the EEC, in reference to the Proposed Draft Standard for Guava Nectar, noted that the Community reserved the right to make detailed comments on the minimum fruit content and on the use of food colours, at an appropriate stage.
317. In regard to the Proposed Draft Standard for Mango Juice, the Delegation of India, supported by that of Cuba, expressed its strong reservations. The Delegation restated its opinion, and that of the Coordinating Committee for Asia, that the product containing 50% fruit pulp, sugar and water was the major product in international trade and that this product was known as “mango juice”. The Delegation further noted that the product defined by the standard, in which a large proportion of the edible pulp was removed by extraction and centrifugation, was practically non-existent in trade. The Observer of the EEC stated that a product containing fruit pulp, water and sugar should be called a “nectar”, and that the Proposed Draft Standard for Mango Juice was not necessary. The Delegation of Brazil in supporting the standard at Step 5 noted that the statement made by Brazil in para.103 of the report of the Group of Experts did not reflect the actual situation in Brazil.
Status of the Standard
318. The Commission, noting the above opinions, advanced the Proposed Draft Standards to Step 6. The Delegation of India reserved its position in regard to the standard for Mango Juice.
319. The Chairman of the Group of Experts noted that a series of proposals for the amendment of Codex Standards for Fruit Juices had been received from the Coordinating Committee for Asia. He assured the Commission that these would be discussed at the Group's next session. He noted that it had not been possible to discuss them at the Group's previous session due to the overlapping of that session and the session of the Coordinating Committee.
320. The Commission noted and endorsed the opinion of the Group of Experts that the Carry-Over Principle did not apply either to fruit juices, concentrated fruit juices or to fruit nectars.
321. The Commission approved the elaboration of a General Standard for Fruit Juices Preserved Exclusively by Physical Means, and a General Standard for Fruit Nectars Preserved Exclusively by Physical Means. The Commission also noted and approved the proposed revision of the methods of analysis and sampling to be undertaken by the Group of Experts.
322. The Commission was informed that the International Federation of Fruit Juice Producers had requested that a General Standard for Fruit (Based) Drinks be elaborated. The Executive Committee (29th Session) had been asked by the Chairman of the Group of Experts to approve the elaboration of such a standard, since circumstances had not permitted the Group to discuss the proposal at its 15th Session. The Executive Committee had agreed to send the proposed text for comments at Step 3, but thought, however, that the Commission should be requested to approve the elaboration of the standard.
323. The Delegation of Canada opposed strongly the elaboration of such a standard. It stated that the proposed standard covered a wide range of products, both carbonated and non-carbonated, which fell within the broad description of “soft drinks”. Experience in Canada had shown the very great difficulty in defining and regulating such products. The Delegation referred to the Codex Advisory List of Food Additives for Soft Drinks which, it stated, gave adequate protection to the consumer. The 13th Session of the Commission had already concluded that standards for soft drinks were unnecessary. The position of the Canadian Delegation was supported by all other delegations which spoke. The Commission accordingly decided not to continue with the further elaboration of the proposed standard for fruit based drinks.
324. The Commission, however, noted an anomaly in the terms of reference of the Group of Experts and agreed to amend them to read:
“To elaborate world-wide standards for fruit juices, concentrated fruit juices and fruit nectars”.
325. The Commission recalled that the Group of Experts had adjourned sine die following its Thirteenth Session in September 1980, and that arrangements had been made for the unfinished work of the Group to be completed by correspondence (see ALINORM 81/39, paragraphs 378–380). For its present discussion the Commission had before it the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Carrots, ALINORM 83/25 and 83/25 Addendum 1, and the Draft International Code of Practice for the Handling of Quick Frozen Foods in Transport, ALINORM 83/37. Government comments in document ALINORM 83/41 Part IV and Addendum 1, Part VIII and Addendum 1, and the conference room paper LIM.4 were also available. In order to facilitate discussion of the two subjects at Steps 7 and 8 the Commission established an Ad Hoc Working Group consisting of representatives from the Delegations of Austria, Cuba, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States of America. The report of the Working Group appears as Appendix VI to the present report.
326. The Commission accepted the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Working Group and adopted at Step 8 the revised Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Carrots which appears as Appendix VI to Annex 1. In adopting the standard, the Commission noted that the provision for “other styles” would permit the manufacture and trade of styles not specifically described in the standard.
327. The Delegation of Ireland noted that several paragraphs in Section 6 of the revised Draft Code contained recommendations which were not required in the Agreement on the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs and the Special Equipment to be Used for Such Carriage (ATP). The Commission agreed, however, that it was appropriate that the Code, as an advisory document, should contain additional recommendations to those appearing in the mandatory ATP text.
328. In considering the revised Draft Code recommended to it by the Ad Hoc Working Group (Annex 2 to Appendix VI), the Commission agreed to accept an amendment to Section 4.2 as proposed by the Delegation of Denmark. The revised section reads as follows:
“When handling of quick frozen foods is expected to increase the product temperature (see especially paragraphs 3.1 and 3.3), it is recommended to decrease the product temperature prior to loading in order to ensure that nowhere in the cargo the product temperature on completion of loading becomes warmer than the recommended carriage temperature”.
The Delegation of France provided some editorial amendments to the French text.
Status of the Draft International Code of Practice for the Handling of Quick Frozen Foods during Transport
329. The Commission adopted the Draft International Code of Practice at Step 8 of the Procedure.
330. The Commission expressed its appreciation of the work of the rapporteur responsible for the development of the revised Draft Standard and Draft Code of Practice, Mr. W. Aldershoff (Netherlands) and Prof. Dr. W. Spiess (International Institute of Refrigeration, IIR) respectively, and also thanked the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Working Group, Mr. C. van der Mays (Netherlands).
331. The Report of the Fifteenth Session of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Produces (ALINORM 83/18) was presented by the Chairman, Dr. O.R. Braekkan of Norway.
332. Dr. Braekkan informed the Commission that work was in progress on the following subjects:
Revised Draft Standard for Canned Pacific Salmon
Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Blocks of Fish Fillets, Minced Fish Flesh and Mixture of Fillets and Minced Fish
Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Sticks (Fish Fingers) and Fish Portions - Breaded or in Batter
Draft Code of Practice for Cephalopods
Microbiological Criteria for Crabmeat
Draft Standard for Dried Salted Fish
Harmonization of Defect Tables in Codex Standards for Frozen Fish Fillets and Quick Frozen Blocks of Fish Fillets, Minced Fish Flesh and Mixture of Fillets and Minced Fish Flesh
Histamine (Scombridae) Poisoning
Consideration of Draft Codes of Practice at Step 8
333. Dr. Braekkan also informed the Commission that an Ad Hoc Working Group of the CCFFP had examined the following Draft Codes of Practice and they were now submitted for adoption at Step 8:
Status of the Codes
334. The Commission noted that no Government comments had been received on the Draft Codes of Practice referred to in para. 333 above, and agreed to adopt them at Step 8 of the Procedure. It was also agreed to adopt the following Draft Code of Practice at Step 5 of the Procedure:
Dr. Braekkan also brought the following points to the attention of the Commission.
335. The problem of acceptance of products containing lard had been raised by the Delegation of Nigeria, which thought that the use of lard should be clearly labelled. The Committee, recognizing that this was a problem faced by several Commodity Committes, had agreed that the matter should be referred to the Commission for guidance.
336. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, at its last Session (ALINORM 83/22), when considering the Revised General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-Packaged Food, had agreed to include under Sub-Section 4.2.3 “Specific names/class names” both pork fat and beef fat among fats requiring declaration.
337. It also noted that the Revised General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-Packaged Foods contained the necessary labelling requirements to identify pork and beef fats and that it had been retained at Step 6. The Commission agreed that there would be further opportunity to comment on this matter at the next session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling.
338. The Commission noted that the definition of smoke had been amended by the Codex Committee on Food Additives and had been further examined by the CCFFP.
339. The Commission noted that some slight editorial amendments had been made to the definition and agreed that the definition as amended should be included in the Code of Practice for Smoked Fish.
340. The Commission noted that there had been some discussion on the above subject and that the CCFFP was of the opinion that, should guidelines be required for the use of nonfish proteins in fish products, such guidelines should be elaborated by the CCFFP.
341. The Commission noted that products covered by the above standard might not be suitable for fish salting and that a different quality of salt might be necessary for this purpose.
342. The Commission recalled that at its 13th Session (ALINORM 79/38, paras. 340–341), it had been agreed to include the following species in the above Standard - Sardinella fimbriata, Sardinella serim Sardinella longiceps, Sardinella gibbosa and Engraulis Mordax. These species had not been included in the recently issued Codex Fish Standards and a corrigendum would be issued to rectify the omission.
343. The Commission also noted that the Codex Coordinating Committee for Asia had proposed the inclusion of Sardine Sardinella. It was agreed that a clarification of the toxonomic position of Sardine Sardinella, product samples and trade figures should be submitted to the CCFFP for examination as specified in ALINORM 79/18, para.111.
344. The Commission was informed that this Standard had already been published (CODEX STAN 95-1981). After discussion at the last session, the CCFFP had agreed to submit a proposal of the Observer of South Africa to amend this standard which required a footnote to the Defects Table in Annex C-1, Table 1, to except “whole” lobster packs from the allocation of four “serious” defect points for “incompleted removal of intestine”.
345. The Commission concurred with the opinion expressed by the Chairman of the CCFFP that this was a consequential amendment to the standard and agreed to the addition of the required footnote.
Confirmation of Chairman
346. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Norway.
347. The Commission had before it the Report of the 13th Session of the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses (ALINORM 83/26). Dr. W. Hölzel of the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany, speaking on behalf of Dr. H. Drews, Chairman of the Committee, introduced the report and gave a brief account of the work currently undertaken by the Committee.
348. Dr. Hölzel reported that a Working Group had met prior to the session to consider a comprehensive working paper on follow-up and supplementary foods for older infants and young children. The paper had also contained a Draft Standard for Follow-up Foods for Older Infants and Young Children and draft guidelines for the development of supplementary foods, both of which had subsequently been placed at Step 3 by the Committee. This was agreed by the Commission.
349. In addition to the matters dealt with under sub-items 26(a) to (e), the Committee had considered Proposed Draft Standards for the Labelling of and Claims for Pre-Packaged Foods claimed to be suitable for Incorporation in a Dietary Regimen for Diabetics (returned to Step 3), Low Energy and Reduced Energy Foods (returned to Step 3) and Draft Guidelines for [Medical] Foods. The Committee had been of the opinion that the latter should be developed within the Step Procedure and be considered at Step 3. This was agreed to by the Commission.
350. The Rapporteur informed the Commission that the Committee had continued its work on several other items through Working Groups (Advisory Lists, Methods of Analysis).
351. The Committee had also given consideration to a paper prepared by Thailand, on behalf of the Coordinating Committee for Asia, which outlined the problems in that region concerning the acceptance of Codex Standards for Infants and Children (paragraphs 127–132).
352. Dr. Hölzel stated that the Committee had also discussed matters related to the implications of the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. The Committee had expressed the view that the Code and the Standards could and should exist side by side (see also para. 377).
353. The Commission was informed that, as requested at its 14th Session, the Committee had given full consideration to all matters related to extending its terms of reference to coordinate work on nutritional aspects within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, assisted by a comprehensive working paper prepared by Dr. M.E. Cheney, Canada (CX/FSDU 82/3). The Committee's conclusions were contained in para. 23 of ALINORM 83/26.
354. The Commission noted that the Committee had accepted its revised extended terms of reference as contained in CX/FSDU 83/3. The Delegation of the United States proposed two amendments to these terms of reference: (a) add in the third indent the term “general” before provisions, and (b) clarify in the fifth indent that Committees had to refer their standards specifically to CCFSDU for endorsement. These proposals were supported by several delegations. However, it was also pointed out that they might be unduly restrictive. The Commission decided to amend the fifth indent to read “… and were specifically referred to the Committee”.
355. The Observer of the EEC expressed the view that the Committee should deal also with foods for special dietary uses which were not prepackaged. The Chairman stated that these were covered by the present terms of reference and the Committee could be requested to include the item under future work.
356. The Commission agreed with para. 26(b) concerning the timing of sessions and concurred with CCFSDU that the best way of tackling the workload would be by means of specific working groups (para. 26(c)). The Rapporteur invited all interested Members of the Commission to be represented at the meetings of these Working Groups which would be held prior to the session of the Committee.
357. The Commission agreed that the Working Group, scheduled in connection with the 14th Session of the Committee, should continue with its consideration of the Proposed Draft Guidelines for Use by Codex Committees on the Inclusion of Provisions on Nutrition Quality in Food Standards and other Codex Texts and approved that they should be considered to be at Step 3 of the Procedure.
358. The Commission noted that it would be informed in due course of matters of priority for future sessions of the Working Group. It also noted that General Guidelines on Food Fortification were another subject matter which had already been identified and that the Delegation of Canada had agreed to prepare a first draft.
359. The Delegation of France stated its general support for the conclusion in para.23 of the report and proposed that the name of the Committee should be changed to “Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses”. The Commission was informed that this matter had already been discussed and would be again on the agenda for the next session of the Committee which was scheduled to be held in November 1984.
360. The Commission had before it the above draft standard as contained in Appendix III to ALINORM 83/26. Written Step 8 amendments had been received from Switzerland (ALINORM 83/41 - Part VI), Thailand (ALINORM 83/41 - Part VI Add. 1) and France (LIM.9).
361. The Commission noted that the comments submitted by Thailand and France had already been considered by the Committee. The Delegation of India was of the opinion that datemarking using the expression “use before…” was preferable to the expression “best before…” in view of the fact that some vitamins and other nutrients not being stable are lost. The Chairman noted that the indication of expiry dates led to food exceeding such dates being destroyed and that the economic implications of this type of date-marking should be borne in mind.
362. A number of delegations spoke in favour of delaying the advancement of the Draft General Standard in the Codex Procedure in order to allow it to be aligned with other related texts, i.e. the Revised General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods. The Secretariat pointed out that there appeared to be no real need for the General Standard to be held since the two standards dealt with issues specific to ordinary foods on the one hand and foods for special dietary uses on the other. The Delegation of the USA pointed to para. 30 of the Report of the Committee (ALINORM 83/26) according to which a change proposed to Section 2.4 - Advertising, of the General Standard had been left to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling to consider. It was also noted that several provisions of the Standard would have to be referred to CCFL for endorsement.
Status of the General Standard
363. The Commission decided to hold the General Standard for the Labelling of and Claims for Pre-packaged Foods for Special Dietary Foods at Step 8 of the Procedure. The Committee was requested to align at its next session the Standard with the General Standard for Prepackaged Foods which was expected to be finalized at that time, and to submit it for endorsement to the 18th Session of CCFL.
364. The above amendment was contained in Section II of Appendix XIII. The Rapporteur pointed out that the Committee had given full consideration to the amendment which provided for certain additives and carrier substances in vitamin preparations to be carried over in the product which otherwise prohibited any carry-over of additives. He also emphasized that very small amounts of these substances were actually used. The Committee had proposed that the above amendment be adopted at Steps 5 and 8 with the omission of Steps 6 and 7. Dr. Hölzel pointed out that a small editorial error had to be corrected in the proposed text.
365. The Commission adopted the above amendment at Steps 5 and 8 of the Procedure.
366. The Committee had elaborated a number of proposals for amending some provisions of the Codex Standards for Foods for Infants and Children (CODEX STAN 72/74-1981), Codex Alimentarius Vol. IX) which were contained in Appendix XIII, Part IA-D. The Committee had requested the Commission to approve that the amendment procedure be initiated and that the amendments be considered to be at Step 3.
367. The Commission agreed with the above request and decided that the amendments contained in Appendix XIII, Part IA-D, should be considered to be at Step. 3.
368. The Delegations of Spain and of Hungary agreed to submit their comments on the above amendments which were of a technical nature to the next session of the Committee.
369. The proposed text for the amendment of the above advisory lists (Part IV of Vol. IX of the Codex Alimentarius) was contained in Part III of Appendix XIII to ALINORM 83/26. The Committee had finalized a provision on special vitamin forms and requested the Commission to approve the above text for inclusion into the Advisory List on Vitamin Compounds for Use in Foods for Infants and Children which had not been elaborated within the Step Procedure.
370. The Commission noted that there was a typing error under (a) which would be corrected in accordance with the maximum levels given in para. 120 (c).
371. The Commission approved that the provision on Special Vitamin Forms as contained in Part III of Appendix XIII be included in the Advisory List for Vitamin Compounds.
372. The Committee had decided that the above standard should be amended to include the same provisions on date-marking and storage instructions which had been included in other Codex Standards for Foods for Special Dietary Uses (para.10). The Commission had been requested to consider the above amendment as contained in Part IV of Appendix XIII as a consequential amendment.
373. The Commission agreed that the above amendment was of a consequential nature and adopted the amendment at Step 8 in accordance with the revised Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards.
Other Matters arising from the Report of the Thirteenth Session of the Committee
374. The Committee had complied with the request by the Commission to review the wording of the provisions on date-marking and storage instructions in the above standards as and when the Guidelines on Date-Marking were finalized. The Committee had found the text of the Guidelines for those two provisions satisfactory and had requested the Commission to approve an appropriate editorial amendment of the standards concerned (para.10).
375. The Commission noted that the proposed wording for the amendment was identical to the relevant provisions in the Guidelines on Date-Marking and adopted at Step 8 the text as an editorial amendment in accordance with the revised Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards.
376. The WHO Joint Secretary reported on the above subject. At its 14th Session, the CAC had received a detailed account on this International Code which had been adopted by the World Health Assembly as a Recommendation in May 1981 (WHA 34.22). The Code, in its operational paragraph 4, had requested the CAC to give full consideration to action it might take with regard to the standards for infant foods and to support and promote the implementation of the Code. The Commission had held the view that the CCFSDU was the appropriate Committee to coordinate this work. As a consequence, the Codex Secretariat had requested Codex Contact Points and other interested parties to examine the Code and the result of this examination had been discussed at the 13th Session of the CCFSDU in 1982. The Codex Secretariat had now complied with a request by the Committee to appoint a consultant who would review all relevant Codex Standards in the light of the International Code. This review would be before the CCFSDU at its next session. In order to keep the CAC abreast of the progress in implementing the Code in Member States, the Codex Secretariat had sent the relevant WHO documents to Codex Contact Points in June 1983. This documentation provided an overview of the steps being taken in more than 100 countries and territories to give effect to the International Code.
377. The World Health Assembly, in 1981, adopted Resolution WHA 34.23 which had requested an assessment of changes in the nutritional value and safety in this type of foods during storage and transport under extreme climatic conditions. The activities of WHO had been regularly reported to CCFSDU because of the possible implications for the relevant Codex Standards.
378. The Commission noted with satisfaction the progress report on both World Health Assembly Resolutions and wished to assure WHO of its continued support in its efforts to improve the nutrition of infants and young children.
379. The Delegation of Thailand wished to express its thanks for the assistance of Australia concerning the technological developments in the field of infant foods (para. 131 of ALINORM 83/26).
Confirmation of Chairmanship
380. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
381. The Commission wished to convey to the authorities concerned in the Federal Republic of Germany its appreciation for providing the necessary support which would enable the Committee to carry out its work under its extended terms of reference. It also thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat of the Committee for their willingness to accept a considerable additional workload.
382. The Commission had before it the Report of the 12th Session of the Codex Committee on Processed Meat and Poultry Products (ALINORM 83/16). The Report was introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Dr. Ms. A. Brincker. Dr. Brincker gave an account of the work accomplished by the Committee since the last session of the Commission, and informed the Commission that the Committee would, as part of its future programme of work, undertake elaboration of processing requirements for shelf stable canned cured meat products.
383. The Commission had before it the above Draft Code of Practice as contained in Appendix II of ALINORM 83/16 and Step 8 amendments, as put forward by the Federal Republic of Germany, United Kingdom and Chile.
384. The Commission was informed by the Chairman of the Committee that the amendments proposed by the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom had all been considered by the Committee at its earlier sessions and that only the amendment proposed by Chile on the question of more specific recommendations for measures to retard oxidation processes in mechanically separated meat during storage had not been discussed by the Committee. Chile had not put forward any specific proposal for amendment and the Commission noted that the matter was covered in general terms in the Code. The Commission was also informed that it did not seem that Chile's comments raised a substantive matter.
385. The Commission recognized that the CCP (Critical Control Point) note (para.2 of Appendix II) provided guidance to inspectors and hence did not agree to the United Kingdom's suggested amendment to delete the time temperature conditions given in the CCP note.
Status of the Code
386. The Commission adopted the Code of Practice at Step 8 noting that the figure for the calcium content (1.5 percent) of mechanically separated meat was a compromise. The Delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany reserved its position. The Delegation of India suggested a figure of 2.5% for the calcium content.
387. The Commission noted that the Code of Hygienic Practice had undergone extensive amendments at its 12th Session and, having heard no objections from any of the Members of the Commission, advanced it to Step 6.
Other Matters Arising from the Report of the 12th Session of the Committee
388. The Commission noted that the Guidelines which the Committee was developing and which were now at Step 3 were at a very preliminary stage of development and that a number of provisions were still in square brackets. The Committee was also considering the possible inclusion of non-meat proteins other than vegetable proteins in the Guidelines.
389. The Commission expressed the opinion that the CCPMPP could benefit significantly from the General Guidelines for the Use of Vegetable Proteins presently being elaborated by CCVP.
390. The Guidelines being developed by Commodity Committees should be consistent with the General Guidelines being developed by the Codex Committee on Vegetable Proteins, with due regard to the specific requirements of individual products.
391. The Commission expressed the wish that the development of the Guidelines should be in close cooperation with the CCVP.
392. The CCPMPP at its 12th Session expressed considerable concern at the present position regarding the sterilizing of spices to be used in processed meat and poultry products. The most common method of treatment by ethylene oxide was under criticism, for toxicological reasons, and was expected to be prohibited in at least some countries in the near future. As there was a real need for spices of good bacteriological quality for use in processed meat and poultry products moving in international trade and also for products other than meat products, the CCPMPP agreed to seek the advice of the Commission regarding the desirability of elaborating a Code of Hygienic Practice for Production, Handling and Treatment of Spices, with a view to international harmonization. The Commission recognized the need for such a Code and requested the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene to consider undertaking such a task at its next session.
Confirmation of the Chairmanship of the Committee
393. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Processed Meat and Poultry Products should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Denmark.
394. The Commission had before it the Report of the Fifth Session of the above Committee which was introduced by the Head of the New Zealand Delegation, Mr. G.H. Boyd, on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee.
395. Mr. Boyd reported that at the Fifth Session, the CCMH had done extensive work on the following Codes:
Draft International Code of Hygienic Practice for Game
Draft International Code of Practice for Ante-Mortem and Post-Mortem Judgement of Slaughter Animals and Meat
396. The CCMH had considered that in both cases the maximum degree of consensus had been reached by participants and by governments. The Committee, therefore, was submitting both Codes to the Commission for adoption at Step 8; in the latter Code the omission of Steps 6 and 7 had been recommended.
397. The Commission noted that the Code had been fully discussed and considerably amended during the session.
398. It also noted that a further amendment was proposed by the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany, namely that in Section 41 dealing with Retention of Game Carcasses, the final sentence should read. “The relevant parts of the game carcass should be assembled for further examination and any laboratory test deemed necessary for reaching a final decision”.
399. The Commission agreed to this amendment.
Status of the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Game
400. The Commission adopted the Code at Step 8 of the Procedure.
401. Mr. Boyd informed the Commission that the above Code, as amended by the CCMH, and which was contained in ALINORM 83/32, Addendum I and Appendix II, Annex I, had been published at short notice, in order that the text, which had been agreed by the CCMH, should be presented to the Commission, and also in order to give governments an opportunity to raise points at the present session.
402. The Delegation of Thailand referred to its written comments (ALINORM 83/41, Part X) and confirmed its support for the proposal made by the Delegation of Uruguay at the last session of the Committee to amend paras. 3.4 and 3.4.1 referring to Virus Conditions (Foot and Mouth Diseases) (see ALINORM 83/32, Appendix III and para. 118). In its opinion, these proposals concerned important technical points and for this reason the Code should not be advanced. The Delegation of Brazil fully supported this point of view.
403. The Observer from the EEC pointed out that the Code combined public health provisions and animal health provisions. It also contained in Appendix III a first page with recommendations on how to deal with residues in meat and as a supplement, on the following pages, lists of pesticides with, where available, maximum residue limits. In the opinion of the Observer these lists were out of date and should not be retained.
404. The Commission noted that the list referred to was intended only as an informal supplement to the Code.
405. The Commission also noted that as a result of earlier discussions, it had been decided to form an expert consultation to examine the question of residues/contaminants in meat (see paragraphs 156–162). The Commission agreed, in view of this, that Appendix III was no longer necessary, since up-to-date information on such questions would be available from the expert consultation. It was agreed to delete Appendix III in its entirety.
406. The Observer from the EEC, referring to Appendix II - Final Judgement - Tables by Diseases and Defects, expressed the opinion that the combination of Animal Health conditions and Public Health factors listed in the tables would lead to confusion and that furthermore other Codes, such as the International Zoosanitary Code of the OIE, had not been fully taken into account.
407. Speaking on behalf of the ten Member States of the EEC, he proposed that the Annex should be deleted in its entirety.
408. The Delegation of Norway expressed the opinion that Appendix II contained valuable information regarding safeguards for both consumer health and animal health and that coverage of both these aspects was necessary in the “Judgement Code”. The Delegation of Norway was opposed to the deletion of animal health aspects.
409. The Representatives of WHO and FAO informed the Commission that they considered Appendix II to be the most essential part of the document. The Representative of WHO further pointed out that the proposal of the Delegation of Uruguay referred to only 8 pathological conditions in vesicular animal diseases and suggested that such conditions of animal health could be judged in accordance with the International Zoosanitary Code (which was cross-referenced in the “Judgement Code”). He also pointed out that the list of foodborne and zoonotic pathogenic agents had increased tremendously in the past decade. The Post-Mortem inspection for these zoonoses and judgement of meat from infected animals in general had a great public health significance even if some animal diseases were not considered zoonotic at the present time.
410. The Delegation of the USA supported by the Delegation of Australia was of the opinion that the “Judgement Code” in its entirety was essential and that the present text represented the best international compromise possible on a very important matter. The Delegation of New Zealand agreed with this point of view. The Delegation of New Zealand reminded the Commission that the “Judgement Code” had been examined not only by the CCMH, but also had been drafted by a working party of member countries and was of the opinion that drastic changes to the text as a result of verbal comments to this Commission at this late stage would have an extremely negative effect on the value of the “Judgement Code” as a whole.
411. The Delegation of the Netherlands stated that the Code as it stood could present difficulties with regard to meat inspection in the absence of animal health specialists at meetings of the Committee. The Delegation of Netherlands was of the opinion that further written government comments were needed to correct any possible mistakes in animal health provisions. Several delegations shared this opinion.
412. The Commission noted the opinion of the Legal Adviser that omission of steps could only be justified when there was an urgent need for the Code and that the withdrawal of Appendix III removed the necessity for advancing the Code to Step 8 on these grounds.
Status of the Draft International Code of Practice for Ante-Mortem and Post-Mortem Judgement of Slaughter Animals and Meat
413. The Commission decided to advance the Code to Step 6 of the Procedure and invite written comments with regard to public health/animal health aspects of the Code. The views of governments would be collated and analysed by the FAO/WHO Secretariat and placed before the Executive Committee at its next session, so that it could be decided as a policy matter whether there was justification for re-examining the Code.
414. The Commission noted that the CCMH decided to adjourn sine die and confirmed this. It expressed its appreciation to the Government of New Zealand for the excellent progress that had been made on extremely complex subjects and for its generosity in hosting the Committee.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
415. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of New Zealand.
416. The Commission had before it the Report of the Third Session of the Committee (ALINORM 83/29) and a report on matters which required specific action by the Commission in ALINORM 83/21.
417. Dr. R.W. Weik of the Delegation of the United States introduced the above report on behalf of Mr. D.R. Galliart, Chairman of the Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes. He reported on the work carried out by the Committee at its third session.
418. The Commission had before it the above standard as contained in Appendix III and written proposals for amendments and comments at Step 8 in ALINORM 83/41-Part V - Add.1 (Domenican Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Poland and Thailand) and LIM.5 (France).
419. The Rapporteur, Dr. R.W. Weik, pointed out that the development of the standard had been transferred to the Committee from the Coordinating Committee for Africa at Step 6 and that the Committee had had, during three sessions, extensive discussions in order to finalize the standard. He further pointed out that the above standard had been sent at Step 8 to the 14th Session of the Commission which had returned it to Step 6. The Committee had consequently paid special attention to taking into account additional comments.
420. Referring to the written comments at Step 8, the Rapporteur indicated that most of the points raised had been thoroughly discussed by the Committee and he proposed, therefore, that the above standard be adopted at Step 8.
421. Several delegations expressed the view that the standard as contained in Appendix III was incomplete, in that the section on methods of analysis and sampling had been separated from the standard and some technical provisions needed, in their opinion, further attention.
422. The Delegation of India pointed to the need to define appropriate methods since they were linked closely to the numerical values contained in the standard.
423. The Delegation of Argentina, stressing the importance of this standard for the maize-consuming countries, could, however, not agree with some of the provisions on hygiene and reiterated the comments made by Argentina at the Third Session of the Committee; it also emphasized the need for appropriate methods of analysis.
424. It was pointed out that appropriate methods had previously been included in the standard. However, the final selection was being referred to a Working Group composed of AOAC, ICC and ISO, which would meet in connection with the 4th Session of the Committee.
425. At that point of time, the Commission decided to hold the standard at Step 8, pending further work on several provisions such as quality criteria and hygiene and endorsement of the relevant provisions by the General Subject Committees concerned.
426. The Rapporteur expressed his disappointment at the fact that the comments and objections against the standard were presented at such a late stage only and indicated that there was some doubt in his mind as to whether, under the circumstances, the Committee should continue its work.
427. The Commission urged Member Countries to submit their detailed comments on the standard to the Committee, to provide the necessary expert advice, and to attend, if at all possible, the next session of the Committee in order to facilitate the finalization of a standard which had been considered to be very important by the Commission at its previous session.
Status of the Standard for Maize (Corn)
428. Finally, in order to enable the Secretariat to request further comments and the Committee to discuss the standard at its next session, the draft standard for maize (corn) was returned to Step 6 of the Procedure, instead of being retained at Step 8, as had first been decided. The Delegation of Thailand urged the Committee to consider also the economic impact of certain provisions, e.g. size of grains.
429. The above standard was contained in Appendix II and written proposals for amendments at Step 8 and comments were contained in ALINORM 83/41-Part V (EEC, Group of Millers Associations in the EEC (GAM); ALINORM 83/41-Part V, Add. 1 (Dominican Republic, Japan, Norway, Poland and Thailand) and LIM.5 (France and the Netherlands).
430. Dr. Weik, in introducing this item, pointed out that this standard had also been fully discussed. He stated that the sections on hygiene and labelling had already been seen by the relevant Committees and had been amended according to the suggestions made by these Committees. Dr. Weik informed the Committee that with regard to methods of analysis and sampling, the advice of the Session of CCMAS had been sought and these sections would be finalized by the working group mentioned in para. 424. He recalled that the Commission had, on previous occasions, adopted standards in which some provisions had not been finalized; and that especially with regard to fat acidity and particle size, the determination of appropriate methodology would require a number of years.
431. The Rapporteur informed the Commission that all written comments before it had already been discussed by the Committee and proposed that, in view of the importance of wheat flour as a staple food, the standard be adopted at Step 8.
432. The Delegation of India informed the Commission that the Coordinating Committee for Asia at its 3rd Session had recommended that this Committee not proceed too rapidly with this standard, since it was incomplete (para. 50 of ALINORM 83/15). The Chairman reminded Chairmen of Committees that written comments should be taken into account, and this was important especially if they had been submitted by Coordinating Committees.
433. A number of delegations and the Observer from the EEC, in some cases confirming their written comments, stated strongly that, in their opinion, the standard was not ready to be adopted at Step 8 and that further work was needed on fat acidity, particle size and on certain provisions for food additives, contaminants, hygiene, nutritional value, optional ingredients and methods of analysis and sampling.
434. In addition to these comments, two delegations commented also on the Scope Section. The Delegation of Portugal wished to have included provisions which related to the intended use of the flour (e.g. breadmaking, cakeflour). It also opposed the permitted use of bean and soyflour to improve protein content, since these optional ingredients changed the characteristics of the flour. The latter comment was supported by the Delegation of India, which also regretted that flour from durum wheat which was a very important food in India had been excluded from the standard.
435. The Delegation of the United Kingdom referred to Appendix VIII which contained the Technological Justification of the Use of Food Additives which had been prepared for submission to CCFA. It pointed out, that the 16th Session of CCFA had held the view that the paper reflected only the situation in the United Kingdom and had endorsed only two of the additives, without giving a satisfactory explanation for this action. The Delegation of the United Kingdom proposed that a Working Group should review the additives sections and report to the next session of the Committee. The Commission recommended to the Committee to consider this proposal.
Status of the Standard for Wheat Flour
436. The Commission decided to return the draft standard for wheat flour to Step 6 of the Procedure and requested the Secretariat to issue a circular letter which strongly emphasizes the need for comprehensive comments in good time and representation at the Committee's next session by interested countries in order to enable the Committee to finalize the pending sections of the standard.
437. The Dominican Republic and Poland had expressed, in writing, their view that these two standards should be elaborated (ALINORM 83/41-Part V, Add.1). The Commission adopted the above standard at Step 5 of the Procedure and advanced them to Step 6.
Other Matters arising from the Third Session of the Committee (Agenda Item 30(c))
438. The Commission was informed that the Committee had decided not to elaborate a Codex Standard for Milled Rice at present. A summary of the discussions on this matter by the Third Session of the Committee had been contained in ALINORM 83/21 as background material. As requested, the 30th Session of the Executive Committee had examined the Committee's decisions in particular with a view to avoid duplication of work with other international organizations, in this case ISO.
439. The Commission was informed of the following conclusions by the Executive Committee:
Which had,
(a) noted with satisfaction that in the case of milled rice there was no duplication of work between ISO and the Commission:
(b) agreed that the ISO specification for rice was being developed in accordance with the ISO policy statement recognized by the Commission, and that the Commission should be advised accordingly;
(c) recommended that, in view of the different format and scope of ISO specifications and Codex Standards, the Commission should advise that the ISO Specification for Rice when finalized: (i) be sent to all Member Countries of the Commission for comments; (ii) be discussed in the light of these comments by the Regional Coordinating Committees; and (iii) together with the views of the Coordinating Committees be referred to CC/CPL for further consideration of the need to elaborate a standard for milled rice in the Codex format. (Para. 23 of ALINORM 83/4).
440. The Commission fully approved the Executive Committee's conclusion as given above and, in particular, referred the matters outlined in (c) to the Codex Secretariat and ISO.
441. The Commission was informed that the Committee had accepted its revised terms of reference, namely: to elaborate world-wide standards and/or codes of practice as may be appropriate for cereals, pulses, legumes and their products.
442. The Commission was further informed that the Committee had agreed on a definition for pulses, legumes and leguminous oilseeds and had commenced work on a standard for pulses. This draft standard had been based on the UNECE draft recommendation for pulses and had been sent out for comments at Step 3.
443. The Commission expressed its appreciation to UNECE for its cooperation in this field and to UNECE's decision to discontinue work on its draft recommendation until the Codex standard had been finalized (see also para.66).
444. The Observer of ICC outlined briefly the work which was done by his organization in the field of cereal chemistry, including methods of analysis. He pointed out that scientists and technologists of the most important cereal producing countries cooperated with ICC which in turn liaised with other organizations such as ISO and recently with CC/ CPL. The Observer of ICC reiterated his organization's willingness to offer its expertise to the Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
445. Dr. Weik repeated his misgivings as to whether or not it was worthwhile using the Committee's time and resources in repeatedly reviewing standards such as those for maize and wheat flour which could not gain acceptance by the Commission, but indicated the willingness of the USA to continue to host the Committee.
446. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the United States.
447. The Commission had before it the report of the 15th Session of the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate (ALINORM 83/10). The Chairman of the Committee, Dr. E. Matthey (Switzerland), introduced the report and reviewed the excellent progress which had been made on the three standards before the Committee which had all been advanced to Step 8 and were now before the Commission (see ALINORM 83/10 Appendices II, III and IV).
448. Dr. Matthey informed the Commission that in its original form the above Draft Standard had included Cocoa Beans. At the 10th Session of the Commission the Standard had been returned to Step 7 (see ALINORM 74/44 paragraphs 83–91), chiefly because of lack of agreement on defects and moisture levels. This part of the Standard was based on the Model Ordinance prepared by the FAO Study Group on Cocoa whose recommended norms had been included in the Export Marketing Regulations of several primary producing countries. In the course of successive meetings of the CCCPC repeated attempts to reconvene the Cocoa Study Group in order to review and amend the Ordinance had been unsuccessful and it was understood that no meeting of this Group could be organized in the foreseeable future. However, since trade in cocoa beans depended largely on marketing regulations of trading countries and on private agreements between buyer and seller and since the Codex Standard also contained provisions for the semi-processed products used in the manufacture of the finished products, an amended Standard from which the provisions for cocoa beans had been removed was proposed to the Committee and, after examination and some amendment, was now submitted to the Commission at Step 8 (see ALINORM 83/10 Appendix II).
449. The Delegation of the Ivory Coast informed the Commission of its country's activities and position with regard to the elaboration of this and other standards through the CCCPC. The delegation also pointed out the beneficial effects of Codex Standards both to consumers and to international trade. It agreed that cocoa beans were a raw product that was already well regulated in international trade and supported the adoption of the “Nibs Standard” at Step 8. The Delegations of Brazil, Cameroon, Ecuador, Ghana, Mexico and Nigeria and the Observer from the EEC also supported the adoption of the Standard.
450. The Delegation of the United Kingdom, while not opposing the adoption, was of the opinion that the Standard was incomplete if provisions for beans were not included.
451. The Delegation of Thailand expressed reservations with regard to the levels of copper and lead in the contaminants section.
Status of the Standard
452. The Commission decided to adopt the Standard for Cocoa Nib, Cocoa Mass, Cocoa Press Cake and Cocoa Dust (Cocoa Fines) for Use in the Manufacture of Chocolate Products at Step 8 of the Procedure.
453. Dr. Matthey informed the Commission that the following issues had been discussed at the Committee Session: the use of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter in composite chocolate; amendment of the standard to include coated products, and the proportion of the chocolate component expressed as total weight of the finished product in filled products.
Use of Vegetable Fats
454. The Commission noted the discussion which had taken place on the subject (ALINORM 83/10 paragraphs 61–69) and that two texts had been proposed for the description of Composite Chocolate, namely the present text of 2.1 which excluded fats unless present in a permitted ingredient, and a second text of 2.1 which would allow the addition of vegetable fat up to a maximum of 5 percent. It also noted that the same broad groups of delegations supported one of the other versions. The Delegation of Sweden, referring to paragraph 62 of ALINORM 83/10, wished it noted that Sweden had not been mentioned as supporting the second version of 2.1.
455. The Delegation of the United Kingdom, referring to its written comments and proposed amendments in ALINORM 83/4 Part XI, and to paragraph 63 of ALINORM 83/10, pointed out that the use of vegetable fats had increased considerably while the Committee had been examining the question and that a number of countries which did not at present permit such use were reviewing the matter. In addition, the present provisions would exclude many products now on the market, at present estimated at 20–25 percent of the world production of chocolate. The delegation therefore proposed that its amendments to Sections 2.1, 3.1.2, and 7.1.1.1 be accepted.
456. The Delegation of Ireland supported the United Kingdom's proposal.
457. The Delegation of Belgium pointed out that although national legislation did not permit the use of vegetable fats, it was of the opinion that analytical methods were available which would enable strict control of the addition of vegetable fats and that with adequate labelling provisions, fats permitted by national legislation could be accepted.
458. After some further discussion, the Commission noted that a majority was of the opinion that the present provisions of 2.1 for Composite Chocolate were the best compromise possible and decided to maintain the present text.
459. The Commission noted that the technology of the use of vegetable fats was still developing and requested the Secretariat to keep the situation under constant review.
Proportion of Chocolate in Filled Chocolate
460. The Observer from the EEC reiterated the opinion expressed at the 15th Session of the CCCPC (see ALINORM 83/10 para.76) that the 40 percent requirement for the chocolate component of the product was too high and that, as permitted by EEC regulations, a lower limit of 25 percent should be allowed.
461. The Commission also noted that a Working Group had proposed amendments to the Standard to allow for the technical difference between coating a prepared centre and filling a chocolate shell.
462. The Delegation of Austria referred to its previously stated position that the higher percentage must be maintained and that other products could be considered as confectionery. After some further discussion the Commission noted that the positions taken by delegates had not changed substantially since the discussions at the 15th Session of the Committee. It noted that the prevailing opinion in the Commission was that the text as presented in ALINORM 83/10 Appendix III should be adopted at Step 8.
463. The Delegation of Thailand, while expressing its agreement with the Standard on the points discussed, expressed reservation on the limits for copper and lead in the contaminants section.
Status of the Standard
464. The Commission decided to maintain the text as presented in ALINORM 83/10 Appendix III and to adopt the standard at Step 8 of the Procedure.
465. The Delegations of Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the Observer from the EEC expressed their strong reservations to the decision. The Delegation of Iran stated that Iran could not accept a standard for filled chocolate or any other kind of chocolate whose composition included liqueur, whisky or other alcoholic beverages.
466. Dr. Matthey, informed the Commission of the problem as previously discussed in the CCCPC regarding the title of the Draft Standard.
467. The Commission noted that by a majority decision the title had been changed at the 15th Session (see ALINORM 83/10, paragraphs 97 and 98) from “Draft Standard for Composite Cocoa Butter (Cocoa Butter Confectionery)” to “Draft Standard for White Chocolate/Cocoa Butter Confectionery”.
468. Several delegations especially from the producing countries expressed their fundamental objection to the name “White Chocolate” for a product which did not conform to the provisions of the Codex Standard for Chocolate.
469. Other delegations repeated the argument, economic and by reason of nomenclature and common usage, which justified the elaboration of a standard which included the name “White Chocolate” (see ALINORM 81/10, paragraphs 75–77).
470. The Commission noted that in the opinions of the producing countries, it would be better to return to the title proposed and labelling provision proposed at the 14th Session of the Committee which read, respectively, as follows:
Draft Standard for [Composite Cocoa Butter] [Cocoa Butter Confectionery]
7.1 Designation of the Product
Products described under Section 2.1 and complying with Section 3.1 of the standard shall be designated [composite Cocoa Butter] [Cocoa Butter Confectionery]. In addition other alternative designations e.g. “white chocolate”) may be used if they will not mislead or deceive the consumer in the country where the product is sold.
471. The Delegation of the United States proposed to simplify the above text by eliminating “Composite Cocoa Butter” from the title and from the labelling section.
472. The delegations of the producing countries repeated their fundamental objection to the description “White Chocolate”, even as an alternative description under the labelling section.
473. The Delegation of the United Kingdom questioned whether the description “Cocoa Butter Confectionery” was in common use in any country which consumed products covered by the Standard. In its view the commonly used term was “White Chocolate”.
Status of the Standard
474. After further discussion, the Commission noted that opinions were equally divided on whether to retain the title proposed at the 14th Session or that agreed at the 15th Session. The Commission agreed to hold the standard as proposed at the 15th Session, at Step 8 of the Procedure and to reconsider the matter further at the 16th Session of the Commission.
475. The Delegation of the Ivory Coast expressed some concern about this decision and the provisions of other standards such as Cocoa Butter. It stressed that the raw materials of the chocolate industry were of prime concern to producing countries and the Standards elaborated by the Codex Alimentarius Commission should properly reflect their interests.
476. The Commission noted that provisions agreed in Codex Standards were arrived at through a progressive process of consultation with all Member Governments of the Commission and that the decision taken by the Commission to hold the draft standard at Step 8 indicated its intention not to adopt standards which might not be in the interest of any Member of the Commission.
477. The Commission agreed with the Committee's proposal that it should adjourn sine die.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
478. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Switzerland.
479. The Commission had before it the report of the Second Session of the Codex Committee on Vegetable Proteins which was introduced by the Chairman, Dr. N.W. Tape (Canada) who reviewed the work in progress.
480. Dr. Tape reported that the Committee's terms of reference were adopted with a minor modification to clarify coverage of protein source materials by replacing reference to specific sources with the phrase “any member of the plant kingdom”.
481. Revised terms of reference now read “to elaborate definitions and worldwide standards for vegetable protein products deriving from any member of the plant kingdom as they come into use for human consumption, and to elaborate guidelines on utilization of such vegetable protein products in the food supply system, on nutritional requirements and safety, on labelling and on other aspects as they may seem appropriate”. The Committee also affirmed responsibility for single cell protein under the terms of reference.
482. The Commission agreed to the modified terms of reference.
483. Dr. Tape also informed the Commission that the following subjects had been discussed:
Protein Quality Measurement
Quantitative Methods for the Differentiation of Vegetable and Animal Proteins
Toxicity of Lysino-Alanine (LAL)
484. Dr. Tape informed the Committee that the General Guidelines had been reviewed at Step 2 of the Procedure.
485. There was considerable discussion leading to agreement that the document (with modifications) be advanced to Step 3.
486. In addition, the draft guidelines for testing safety and nutritional quality of vegetable proteins were reviewed and there was general agreement to retain them as Annex I to the above Guidelines.
487. A Working Group was appointed, led by the United Kingdom, to revise Annex I and present it for consideration by the Committee at its next session. Brazil, Canada and the USA agreed to participate.
488. After considerable discussion as to whether there should be a single standard or three separate standards for the three categories of products under consideration (flour, concentrate and isolate) it was agreed that:
There should be a general standard covering vegetable protein products from all sources, including soya beans (but excluding SCP);
The mocked-up single standard, which had been prepared by the Canadian Delegation, would serve as the basis for the development of the general standard. The text would be regarded as being at Step 2;
Development of a specific amalgamated standard for vegetable protein products derived from soya beans could proceed, provided that provisions in the general standard which were also applicable to soya protein products would be incorporated together with any provisions which were specific to the soya products.
The Committee would consider the development of specific standards for other vegetable protein products.
489. An Ad Hoc Working Group set up during the Second Session, developed a draft amalgamated standard for soya protein products, taking into account the provisions of the draft general standard.
490. After subsequent review of the Proposed Draft General Standard for Vegetable Protein Products it was agreed that the draft standard should be sent out to governments for comments at Step 3. Similarly, the proposed draft standards for soya protein products and wheat gluten were reviewed and sent to Step 3.
491. The Delegation of France underlined that it was appropriate to make reference to the methods of analysis standardized by ISO, wherever these exist, because of the agreements between the ISO and the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
492. The Commission noted that at its next session the Committee would have before it for consideration the following:
Government comments on the re-circulated report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Protein Quality Measurement (CX/VP 82/3) (Canada);
Report of current progress in quantitative methods for the differentiation of vegetable and animal proteins (Netherlands);
Revision of Annex “Proposed Draft Guidelines for Testing Safety and Nutritional Quality of Vegetable Protein Products” to the Proposed Draft General Guidelines for the Utilization of Vegetable Protein Products (VPP) in Foods. (Working Group, Coordinator UK, Brazil, Canada, USA);
Background paper on protein from potatoes (Netherlands);
Background paper and proposed Draft Standard for Vegetable Protein from Pulses (Working Group, Coordinator IPT and IC; Canada, France);
Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Utilization of Vegetable Proteins in Foods - Step 4;
Proposed Draft General Standard for VPP - Step 4;
Proposed Draft Standard for Soy Proteins - Step 4;
Proposed Draft Standard for Gluten - Step 4.
493. The Commission expressed its satisfaction to the Chairman of the CCVP on the progress made at the second session of the Committee.
494. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the CCVP to advance the General Guidelines for the Utilization of Vegetable Protein Products (VPP) in Foods and the Draft Standards for Vegetable Protein Products for Soy Proteins and for Wheat Gluten to Step 3 of the Procedure.
495. The Chairman of the Committee reminded the Commission of its earlier offer to assist developing countries with guidance and advice on such matters as processing technology, safety and nutritional value of indigenous vegetable proteins. To-date, no specific request had been made of the Committee for such assistance. The Delegation of Thailand expressed appreciation for this offer of technical support and indicated it would be contacting the Committee on Vegetable Proteins for information and advice on vegetable protein technology.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
496. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Vegetable Proteins should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Canada.
497. The Report of the 20th Session of the Joint FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles Concerning Milk and Milk Products (CX 5/70 - 20th Session) was introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Dr. R.W. Weik of the USA, who gave an outline of the main achievements of the 20th Session of the Committee.
498. The Committee had embarked upon the revision of Standard No. A-2 - Milk Fat Products including Ghee, which was of considerable interest to certain developing countries.
499. The Committee did not embark upon the elaboration of a Standard for Imitation Milk and Imitation Milk Products, but adopted a revised version of Decision No.6 dealing in more general terms with the compositional, hygienic and food additive aspects of these types of products.
500. On the subject of methods of sampling and methods of analysis, the Committee had received a report from representatives of IDF/ISO/AOAC on their work done in this field. Dr. Weik indicated that the Committee had been impressed with the excellent work carried out by these organizations in the field of analysis and sampling. The Committee was pleased to note that irrespective of the frequency of the meetings of the Joint FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products, the three organizations would meet on an annual basis to inform the Codex Secretariat about the progress made and to strengthen the cooperation between the organizations and the Milk Committe.
501. The Committee had recognized that there were a number of items of work (para. 106, CX 5/70 - 20th Session) still awaiting completion by it, and had considered it necessary to have another session to complete the work outstanding. The Committee had noted that the session would be held in 1986, subject to the approval of the Commission.
502. Concluding the presentation of the Report, Dr. Weik expressed the hope that the 8th Edition of the Code of Principles on Milk and Milk Products, including Cheese Standards, and Amendments to Standards as well as Acceptances would soon be published preferably in loose leaflet format in the Codex Alimentarius.
Matters Arising from the Report of the 20th Session of the Committee
503. The Commission noted the willingness of the Joint FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles Concerning Milk and Milk Products to give information on the use of milk proteins to all Codex Committees who wished to include milk proteins of any kind in commodities of interest to them and if necessary to elaborate general guidelines for the purpose.
504. The Commission agreed to invite the views of Codex Commodity Committees on the need to elaborate such guidelines, which could be considered by the next session of the Commission.
505. The Delegations of Australia and New Zealand stated their view that the Committee should be adjourned sine die at this session of the Commission and any unfinished work be completed at Sectariat level. Delegations were reminded by the Delegation of New Zealand that the decision of the Thirteenth (1979) Session of the Commission was that the Committee would be adjourned after its Twentieth (1982) Session after completion of urgent unfinished work. The Commission, having noted that the Codex Secretariat would make provision within its budget for the biennium 1986/87 for holding one more session of the Committee (para. 108, CX 5/70 20th Session) to complete all the remaining items of work, approved the holding of a session of the Milk Committee in 1986. After the meeting in 1986, the Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products would be expected to adjourn sine die.
506. The Commission had before it documents ALINORM 83/33 and Add.1 containing comments concerning a draft standard for acid hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Mexico, Poland, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
507. Professor Dr. E. Matthey, the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Soups and Broths, introduced the above documents. He recalled that, at its 14th Session, the Commission had not been able to decide whether there was a need for such a standard and had, therefore, decided to request further comments from Governments. These additional comments, as contained in the above documents, had generally indicated that Governments considered the subject to be of low priority. Professor Dr. E. Matthey stated that the comments again appeared to be inconclusive. He repeated, however, Switzerland's offer to reconvene the Codex Committee on Soups and Broths in case the Commission decided to elaborate a standard for acid hydrolyzed vegetable proteins.
508. The Delegation of Canada, while considering the subject to be of low priority, offered also that the Committee on Vegetable Proteins could be called upon to elaborate such a standard.
509. The Commission concurred with the Chairman that at present no further work should be undertaken on the draft standard for acid hydrolyzed proteins as contained in Appendix 1 to ALINORM 83/33. The Commission also agreed that, if Member Countries indicated a substantial interest in the subject at a future session, it could be re-discussed at that time.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
510. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Soups and Broths should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Switzerland. The Commission noted that the Committee had adjourned sine die.
511. The Commission had before it ALINORM 83/27, containing a progress report on the elaboration of methods of analysis for sugars and on lead limits, the two matters outstanding since the Committee had adjourned sine die. Miss M. Coales, acting as Rapporteur for the United Kingdom, introduced the Report.
512. On methods of analysis, a draft paper reviewing present methods of analysis had been prepared and would be sent shortly to ISO and ICUMSA for clearance. Once this was obtained, Government comments would be sought and a final version would be submitted to the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling for endorsement.
513. On lead limits, following the request of the Codex Committee on Food Additives at its 14th Session the United Kingdom Secretariat had twice sought information from Governments (CL 1981/24 and CL 1982/36), with a view to reducing the limits at present in the standards. The results of this consultation had been discussed by the 16th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives which had decided not to recommend any change but had requested the Secretariat to seek further information from Governments on the technological feasibility of reducing the existing lead levels so that a lower maximum level than 1 mg/kg could be set. The Secretariat to the Sugars Committee would be issuing such a request shortly.
514. The Delegation of Argentina stated that it could now agree to a reduction of the maximum lead level for white sugar to 0.5 mg/kg. The Commission took note.
Confirmation of the Chairmanship
515. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX. 10 that the Codex Committee on Sugars should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the United Kingdom. It noted that the Committee would remain adjourned sine die.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
516. 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.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
517. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Edible Ices should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Sweden. It noted that the Committee would remain adjourned sine die.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
518. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Switzerland. It noted that the Committee would remain adjourned sine die.
Confirmation of Chairmanship of the Committee
519. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Meat should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. It noted that the Committee would remain adjourned sine die.
