520. The Commission had before it documents ALINORM 83/38 Part I and ALINORM 83/38 Part I, Add.1 containing progress reports from the under-mentioned countries concerning the implementation of the Code of Ethics for the International Trade in Food (Ref. No. CAC/RCP 20 - 1979): Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, USA, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.
521. The Commission noted that most of the countries that had replied had stated that the Code was an important document. Most countries had also indicated that the principles laid down in the Code were, by and large, already to be found in their national food law. These principles were also reflected in many cases in customary practices relating to the international food trade. The Commission also noted that several countries had brought the Code to the attention of the food industry including food distributors and exporters. A number of countries had had the Code translated into their national languages.
522. The particular attention of the Commission was drawn to the comments of Argentina. Argentina had stated that it did not find the Code to be acceptable because the Code appeared to be mandatory rather than advisory. The Secretariat pointed out that the Code was indeed advisory but that the translation of the word “should” in the Spanish version of the Code had the effect of making the Code appear mandatory. The word “should” had been translated as “deberá” and “deberán” instead of “debería” and “deberían”. The Secretariat indicated that it would issue a corrigendum relating to the Spanish version of the Code. In the light of this explanation the Delegation of Argentina indicated that it would have no difficulty in finding the Code generally acceptable.
523. The Delegations of India, ireland, Japan, Portugal and the USSR stated that in general the principles set out in the Code of Ethics were reflected in their national food legislation. Portugal had proposed a number of amendments to the Code of Ethics. The Commission decided to take no action at this time on the proposed amendments pending consideration of the proposals in document ALINORM 83/38 Part II to amend the Code of Ethics.
524. The Commission was reminded that the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food had been adopted by the Commission in 1979 and that it contained a reference to the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes which was then still under elaboration by WHO and UNICEF. The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes was adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 1981. The Executive Committee, at its 29th Session in 1982, considered the relationship between the International Code and the Codex Code of Ethics. It requested the Secretariat to prepare a paper to bring the two Codes into line with each other with respect to the promotion and information concerning products covered by both instruments. This proposal is contained in ALINORM 83/38 Part II which was considered by the Executive Committee at its 30th Session. During this session Vice-Chairman Mr. Kimbrell submitted another proposal to amend paragraph 5.9 along the following lines:
“5.9 Foods for infants, children and other vulnerable groups should be in accordance with standards elaborated by the CAC”.
The rest of paragraph 5.9 is to be deleted. WHO, while supporting this new proposal, thought that it would be useful to retain paragraph 5.9(b) of the Code of Ethics. The new text would incorporate Mr. Kimbrell's proposals together with paragraph 5.9(b), and reads as follows:
“5.9 Foods for infants, children and other vulnerable groups should be in accordance with standards elaborated by the CAC. No claims in any form should be permitted that would directly or indirectly encourage a mother not to breast-feed her child, or imply that breast-milk substitutes are superior to breast-milk”.
After through discussion, which is recorded in ALINORM 83/4, paragraphs 6–16, the Executive Committee: (i) agreed to have a new paragraph (g) added to the Preamble of the Codex Code of Ethics, which reads as follows:
“(g) The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes sets forth principles for the protection and promotion of breastfeeding, which is an important aspect of primary health care”.
(ii) accepted to have a consequential amendment in paragraph 5.10(b) of the Code of Ethics, which reads as follows:
“(b) information concerning the nutritional value of food should not mislead the public”.
(iii) concluded its discussions in agreeing that, while recognizing the importance of breast-feeding to the healthy growth and development of infants, it was not necessary to repeat in one international code what was already stated in another. The Executive Committee referred the question to the Commission for its consideration.
525. During the discussion of this topic by the Commission, the Delegations of Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand, United States of America, Thailand and Iraq shared the view of the Executive Committee, i.e. that it was not necessary to repeat in one international code what was clearly stated in another. These delegations, with the exception of Thailand, favoured the proposal made by Vice-Chairman Kimbrell to the Executive Committee. Thailand, on the other hand, indicated that it would not have any difficulty in accepting either proposal mentioned in paragraph 523 above.
526. The Delegation of India, supported by the Delegations of Iran and Tunisia, thought that the Code of Ethics should repeat the relevant paragraphs of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, in particular Article 5.1 concerning advertising and promotion, in order to be able to use the Code of Ethics also for the promotion and protection of breast-feeding. This the Indian Delegation considered to be one of the most important public health issues in developing countries. India had preferred the original version proposed by the Secretariat, contained in ALINORM 83/38 Part II, but stressed the need for more time to study the new proposals made by the Executive Committee.
527. The Chairman therefore proposed to the Commission to defer the final decision on the amendment of the Code of Ethics to the next session of the CAC, in asking (i) Governments to submit written statements regarding their position and (ii) Regional Coordinating Committees to discuss the issue during their forthcoming sessions. The Commission agreed with this proposal.
528. The Commission had before it documents ALINORM 83/40 plus Addendum 1 and Conference Room Document LIM.14 containing the views of Governments on the question of whether there is a need to amend the Codex Standard for Table Olives. The Commission also had before it a document prepared by the IOOC including the details of the amendments proposed (CODEX/COI/OT/Rev.1).
529. In introducing the subject, the Secretariat indicated that the issue to be resolved by the Commission was the need, or otherwise, of initiating the procedure for the amendment of the Codex Standard for Table Olives, so that the revised IOOC Standard and the Codex Standard could be harmonized so far as minimum requirements were concerned. As regards the actual mechanism for considering the amendment, should the Commission decide that the amendment of the Codex Standard was necessary, this had been agreed by the 14th Session of the Commission (see para. 534, ALINORM 81/39). The procedure envisaged by the Commission at its 14th Session was to designate the IOOC as an appropriate “other body” for the purpose of dealing with the amendments, under Step 1 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Worldwide Standards. The Commission noted that the 30th Session of the Executive Committee had decided to leave the question of whether there was a need to initiate the procedure for the amendment of the Codex Standard for Table Olives to the Commission.
530. The Delegation of the USA indicated that it was not in favour of initiating the amendment of the Standard for Table Olives and it wished to be informed as to the extent of the intended revision of the Codex Standard, since the IOOC Standard contained descriptions of commercial quality grades. The Delegation of Thailand stressed that the Codex Standard should contain provisions for consumer safety and minimum quality and should not be either a buyers ‘or a producers’ standard but an international Codex Standard. The Delegation of Argentina expressed its disagreement with the amendment proposed by the IOOC for the reasons given in ALINORM 83/40.
531. The Observer for the IOOC informed the Commission that the need for the amendment of the previous IOOC Standard, which had been in line with the Codex Standard as regards minimum quality requirements, had arisen from recent developments in methods of processing. Furthermore, the present Codex Standard had been accepted only by very few countries which indicated that it did not fully correspond to the needs of producing and importing countries. The Observer from the IOOC added that the IOOC would carry out, in accordance with the Codex procedures, a detailed study of the Codex Standard leading to a revised standard which would find greater acceptance by Governments.
532. The Delegation of Tunisia, supported by the Delegations of France, Spain, Portugal, Algeria and the Observer from the EEC, were in favour of initiating the amendment procedure in relation to the Codex Standard for Table Olives.
533. The Commission decided that the Codex Standard for Table Olives needed to be amended and, therefore, authorized the setting in motion of the amendment procedure. The Delegation of the United States was opposed to this decision. The Commission confirmed that the work of amending the standard be entrusted to the IOOC and designated the IOOC as an appropriate “other body” for this purpose under Step 1 of the Procedure. It was understood that invitations to sessions of the IOOC at which this subject would be considered would be issued to all Member Countries of FAO and WHO and that the working languages would be English, French and Spanish. The Commission also wished to emphasize that the purpose of amending the Codex Standard was to harmonize the Codex and the revised IOOC Standards with respect to the minimum requirements only.
