86. The Commission had before it document ALINORM 85/7, containing a summary of the report of an FAO/WHO Joint Expert Consultation on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods. The full report of the Consultation, as contained in FAO Food and Nutrition Paper No. 32, and the views of the Thirty-Second Session of the Executive Committee (ALINORM 85/4, paras. 18–32) were also available to the Commission. The Commission recalled that the Consultation had been convened by FAO and WHO at the Commission's request expressed at its last session, when the matter of residues of chemicals used in mass medication of animals and of drugs used in veterinary medicine had been raised by several Codex committees.
87. The Commission was informed that the Joint Consultation had discussed the subject in detail and in depth, giving the widest possible definition to the expressions “veterinary drugs” and “residues of veterinary drugs”. Nevertheless, questions relating to the registration of veterinary drugs and veterinary practice had not been discussed in order to avoid duplication with other established bodies.
88. The Consultation had concluded that the question of the occurrence and safety of residues of veterinary drugs in foods of animal origin was of significance to public health and consumer concern, and posed potential problems to international trade. It had recommended to the Commission that a new Codex Committee should be established to deal with these problems and that the Committee should receive the advice of experts in the fields of veterinary medicine, animal science, toxicology, microbiology, immunology, analytical chemistry, and related sciences, from an independent body convened from time to time by FAO and WHO.
to determine priorities for the consideration of residues of veterinary drugs in foods;
to recommend maximum residue levels of such substances;
to develop codes of practice as may be required;
to determine criteria for analytical methods used for the control of veterinary drug residues in foods.
90. The Commission recommended that the new Committee should liaise closely with the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling in carrying out its mandate, and that the work already undertaken by other bodies, such as the Council of Europe, should be taken into account.
91. Two member countries of the Commission offered to host the newly established Committee. After the Chairman had established that there was a quorum, the matter was put to a vote by secret ballot. In the light of the result of the vote, the United States of America was designated by the Commission, under Rule IX.10 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, to be the host country for the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods, with the responsibility for appointing the Chairman.
92. The Commission called upon the Directors-General of FAO and WHO to give earliest consideration to the convening of an appropriate expert body to provide independent scientific advice to the Committee, and noted that first steps had been taken in this regard. The Commission also endorsed the Consultation's recommendation that FAO and WHO should examine ways and means of providing training (particularly to analytical personnel), information and other support to developing countries in the area of control of veterinary drug residues in foods of animal origin. The delegation of Nigeria expressed its interest in participating in any proposed collaborative network which might be established in this area, through its national centre for zoonoses control.
93. The Commission had before it a paper ALINORM 85/35 prepared by Prof. Dr. P.S. Elias (Consultant). It had been prepared in response to the proposal recorded in paragraph 539 of the Report of the Fifteenth Session of the Commission (ALINORM 83/43). The Commission had also before it LIM 17 which contained the comments of governments on the paper ALINORM 85/35. There was general support from the member countries for Codex to undertake work on “Food Packaging”.
94. Presenting his paper, Dr. Elias drew particular attention to the complexity of the subject of food packaging and described the existing regulatory approaches. The establishment of open-ended permitted lists of ingredients for the various types of food packaging together with appropriate global or specific migration limits were suggested as means of achieving a harmonized regulatory approach and of avoiding the creation of barriers to trade. The need for agreement on the methods for simulating food contact, and for agreement on the methods for estimation of migrants was stressed. Dr. Elias proposed that the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) be charged with the handling of the subject of food packaging and that JECFA be invited, with the agreement of FAO and WHO, to provide expert opinion on the ingredients that go into food packaging as well as the migrants from the packaging materials. Dr. Elias referred to the essential contribution of food packaging to food safety. He also considered it unlikely that acute or other significant hazards to the consumer would be created by migrants from food packaging materials.
95. Several delegations agreed that there was a need for the Commission to start considering the subject and that the Codex Committee on Food Additives was the appropriate body to carry out this task. Other delegations felt that, in view of the potentially large work load that would result from a full consideration of the subject of food packaging, attention should be given primarily to substances carrying a significant hazard for the consumer rather than establishing exhaustive lists of permitted ingredients. Some delegations pointed to the need for ensuring that administrative provisions would be adequate and that the CCFA should not be overloaded to the detriment of its other functions. They also urged that the work of other national and international bodies e.g. the Council of Europe and the Commission of the European Communities in this area be taken into consideration. The delegation of Argentina and some other delegations suggested that the proposed control systems be kept flexible i.e. by not making them mandatory but by proposing only guidelines. They also counselled a cautionary approach in order to avoid unreasonable workloads being put onto the CCFA and JECFA.
96. The Commission decided that the subject matter was within the purview of the Commission and represented a potentially large work load. It agreed that the CCFA was the appropriate forum for dealing with the problems of food packaging materials and that the CCFA should consider the paper prepared by the consultant. At the same time the activities and proposals of other organizations should be taken into account, in order to avoid duplication of work. The CCFA should report on the subject to the next session of the Commission. The Secretariat was also requested to watch over the workload of the CCFA and to report back to the Commission, which would decide on what action to take, if it became apparent that by taking on this additional task the CCFA and JECFA would be faced with an undue workload.
97. The Commission had before it documents ALINORM 85/7, ALINORM 83/7 and LIM,13 as well as paragraphs 33–37 of the Report of the 32nd Session of the Executive Committee (ALINORM 85/4). The issue before the Commission was to determine, in the light of further government comments and the views of the Codex Coordinating Committees, whether there was a need to develop Codex standards for tropical fresh fruits and vegetables and, if so, what should the nature of such standards be, what body should be charged with their development and what were the implications as regards their acceptance.
98. The Commission noted that only three additional replies from governments had been received following the 15th Session of the Commission and that there was still opposition to the standardization of tropical fresh fruits and vegetables by some countries and by the Coordinating Committees for Asia and Europe.
99. The Commission also noted that the Executive Committee had examined all available comments and, following discussion and expression of views, had supported in principle the need for standardization of these products. The Executive Committee had, however, stressed that duplication of work should be avoided and that there was a need to examine the nature of any standards which might be elaborated, and the obligations attaching to the acceptance of such standards. Concerning the need to avoid duplication of work, the Commission noted that the UNECE had long established European standards for a wide range of temperate zone fresh fruits and vegetables and had now started work on certain tropical fruits. There was also a need to define the meaning of ‘tropical fruits and vegetables’. The Commission also noted with appreciation that Mexico had offered to host a Codex Committee should it be decided to set one up.
100. The delegations of Thailand and Iraq were of the opinion that it was premature to embark on the standardization of tropical fresh fruits and vegetables. The delegation of Thailand thought that the issue of obligations attaching to acceptance should first be clarified by the Codex Committee on General Principles. The delegation of the United Kingdom were also of the opinion that this matter should first be clarified by the Codex Committee on General Principles and that duplication of work should be avoided. The delegation of New Zealand considered that there was not a sufficiently wide interest in the development of Codex standards for these products to justify the establishment of a Codex committee.
101. The delegation of Mexico stated that for some time there had already existed a strong body of opinion in favour of the need for standardization of tropical fresh fruits and vegetables. The delegation of Mexico thought that objections at this stage should only be on procedural grounds. Statistical data showed that international trade in these products was very large, representing an equally large amount in money value. The delegation urged that the needs of exporting countries for standards of quality should be given consideration. The delegation considered that the establishment of European standards for tropical fresh fruits and vegetables might lead to the establishment of technical barriers to trade. The delegation, therefore, urged the Commission to agree that work should be undertaken in this field without delay. This view was shared by the delegations of Brazil, Cuba, Ghana and Kenya. The delegation of Switzerland was in favour, in principle, of undertaking work on the standardization of tropical fresh fruits and vegetables, as trade in these products was increasing and since there was lack of harmony in the standardization of these products. The Swiss delegation strongly favoured the establishment of a Joint UNECE/Codex Group of Experts to undertake the work. The delegation of Australia supported work to be undertaken by Codex on all fresh fruits and vegetables not only tropical ones, and suggested that existing UNECE and other regional standards could be used as a basis for developing Codex worldwide standards.
103. The Commission had before it a paper (ALINORM 85/9) prepared by a consultant (D.S. Chadha). The paper had been prepared in response to the proposal recorded in paragraph 226 of the Report of the Fifteenth Session of the Commission (ALINORM 83/43).
104. Presenting his paper, the consultant drew the particular attention of the Commission to the main objectives of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which are to protect the health of the consumer and to ensure fair practices in food trade. He indicated that the inclusion of optional clauses in Codex standards to cover certain quality criteria, such as styles, cuts, defects etc. would render the standards, which are intended for adoption in national legislations, largely ineffective.
105. Attention was drawn by the consultant to the views of the 17th Session of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables that certain standards were, perhaps, over-elaborate and that efforts should be directed to the more essential matters of composition, hygiene, food additives and food labelling. However, the consultant emphasized that the Codex commodity committees concerned were the most competent bodies to consider the amount of detail to be incorporated in the standards they were developing. In determining such detail, each commodity committee should take into account international marketing practices, economic impact and related factors. The Codex committees concerned should not include unwanted excessive details in standards, but should try to simplify the standards without lessening their effectiveness from the consumer protection point of view.
106. The recent decisions of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables and the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products were brought to the attention of the Commission where matters were resolved by these two committees through the introduction of a provision entitled ‘Other Styles’ in certain standards for processed fruits and vegetables and a provision ‘Other Representation’ in some standards for fish products. The consultant pointed out, however, that the introduction of such provisions should not result in stricter discipline being applied in Codex standards with specific styles than in Codex standards with non-specific other styles. In any event, these were details to be considered by the commodity committees themselves.
107. The conclusions of the Commission were as follows:
Codex standards, being of a mandatory nature, should not include optional clauses providing for agreement between buyer and seller in regard to quality factors of an aesthetic nature, like styles, types of packs, etc. as this would not provide consumer protection and would not ensure fair practices in the food trade, especially when dealing with products where such criteria are important.
The Committees concerned should review their standards periodically, in order to consider whether they could be simplified by omitting or modifying some of the details about styles, dimensions of sizes, uniformity of sizes, defect tables, keeping in mind the consumer protection, trade practices, changes in technological processing etc. However the initiative lies with the countries which wish to see changes made in the standards.
For the future, it may be necessary for the commodity committees to direct their efforts to the more essential matters of composition, quality, hygiene, food additives and food labelling, taking into account the Work Priorities Criteria and any economic impact statements that may be submitted, but without sacrificing the details which are necessary for consumer protection, having regard to the nature of the products.
The Member Countries of Codex should take urgent steps to notify acceptances of the standards to the Secretariat. Even if they are not in a position to notify Full Acceptance, they may be in a position to notify Acceptance with Specified Deviations, or Target Acceptance, or a declaration of socalled “Free Entry”.
The Coordinating Committee for Asia is asked to identify those provisions in Codex standards which need reconsideration and amendment. Detailed amendments would need to be put forward together with reasons for them.
108. The Commission had before it a paper (ALINORM 85/11) containing a request from the OECD Group on Fruits and Vegetables that the Codex Alimentarius Commission establish maximum limits for a number of chemicals on fruits and vegetables. The observer from OECD informed the Commission that the request had resulted from an investigation carried out by OECD into the post-harvest use of chemical preservatives and other substances for maintaining the quality of fruits and vegetables. It was found that more than 50 chemicals were being used in the countries investigated and that maximum legal limits varied considerably; also some chemicals were permitted in some countries while not in others. The OECD had concluded that this situation could result in technical barriers to trade.
109. A number of corrections were made to the above document as follows by the delegations of the countries mentioned:
Page 6 chlorprophame-prophame under France the limit of 0.5 mg/kg refers to unpeeled potatoes
Page 7 2-amino-benzimidazol: permitted in Austria only for citrus fruit and bananas
Page 8 phosphine: under New Zealand the limit for potatoes should read 0.01 mg/kg
Page 11 waxes - under New Zealand the limit should read 3 g/kg for citrus fruit, cucumbers and potatoes.
110. The delegation of the United Kingdom was of the opinion that it would be necessary to determine which substances included in the OECD paper were preservatives and which should be regarded only as post-harvest pesticides before referring them for consideration by the Codex Committees on Food Additives and Pesticide Residues, as had been suggested in the paper. This was so since some chemicals could be used both as pesticides and as preservatives.
111. The observer from the IOCU indicated that consumers were not only interested in facilitating trade, but also in the safety of residues of chemicals such as those included in the OECD paper. In her opinion, the chemicals in question should all be regarded as food additives and be declared on the label. For example, consumers may have allergies to chemicals or may wish to be informed about the nature of the chemical on the fruit or vegetable for other reasons.
112. The delegation of the Netherlands undertook to arrange with the respective Chairmen of the Codex Committees on Food Additives and Pesticide Residues to study the OECD paper in the light of the above remarks and to handle the matter through the appropriate Codex Committees.
113. The Commission expressed its appreciation to the Netherlands delegation and to OECD.
