INTRODUCTION AND OPENING OF THE SESSION (Agenda Item 1)

1.   The 29^th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) was held in The Hague, the Netherlands from 17–21 March 1997 at the kind invitation of the Government of the Netherlands. Mr. Hans van der Kooi, Netherlands Department of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, chaired the meeting. The meeting was attended by 181 delegates representing 45 Members of the Commission and by 62 persons representing 38 international organizations.

2.   Mr. J.F. de Leeuw, keynote speaker and Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, stressed the importance of the Codex Alimentarius and more specifically the prominent role of the CCFAC. Increasing world trade in the context of the implementation of the World Trade Agreements has an enormous impact on the work and status of the Codex. Mr. De Leeuw emphasized the increasing importance of aspects such as consumer concerns in the decision-making process about the safety of foodstuffs.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA¹(Agenda Item 2)

3.   The Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda as proposed. The Committee agreed to hold an informal Working Group to discuss Proposals for the Priority Evaluation of Food Additives and Contaminants by JECFA (agenda item 17) under the chairmanship of Mr. R. Top (The Netherlands).

APPOINTMENT OF RAPPORTEUR (Agenda Item 3)

4.   The Committee agreed with the suggestion of the Chairman to appoint Dr. Simon Brooke-Taylor of Australia as Rapporteur.

MATTERS REFERRED FROM THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION AND OTHER CODEX COMMITTEES² (Agenda Item 4a)

5.   The Committee noted that on the matter of Guideline Levels for Methylmercury in Fish, the 43^rd Session of the Executive Committee recommended³ that the CCFAC initiate the necessary work to undertake a new risk analysis on methylmercury, including an evaluation of newly available safety information. Consideration could then be given to recommending new risk management options. Although it was proposed that the guideline levels for methylmercury should be based on mercury only, the Committee agreed to defer any decision on this matter until JECFA had performed the appropriate risk assessment.

6.   The Committee also agreed to examine a proposal to include packaging provisions⁴ to maintain the stability of iodized salt in the Revised Standard for Food Grade Salt. A draft would be prepared by Malaysia for consideration at its next Session.

REPORTS OF JOINT FAO/WHO EXPERT CONSULTATIONS ON RISK MANAGEMENT (Agenda Item 4b)

7.   The Committee was advised that the following joint expert consultations had been convened by FAO and WHO:

• Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Application of Risk Management to Food Safety Matters; Rome, 28–31 January 1997

• Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Food Consumption and Exposure Assessment of Chemicals; Geneva, 10–14 February 1997.

¹ CX/FAC 97/1.
² CX/FAC 97/2.
³ ALINORM 97/3, para. 25.
⁴ ALINORM 97/26, para. 29.

Information on the outcome of these consultations was provided by Dr. C. Fisher (UK) and Dr. A. Rulis (USA), Rapporteur and Chairman of the respective consultations.

8.   The former consultation dealt with all areas of risk management within the Codex framework, including food additives and contaminants, and also with microbiological risk management. The consultation recommended definitions, provided general principles of risk management, and summarised current practices used by Codex Committees. Both consultations stressed the need for interaction between risk assessment and risk management while keeping these two elements of the risk analysis process structurally apart from each other. It was necessary for risk managers, such as those represented by CCFAC, to pose clear and concise questions to risk assessors in order to allow risk assessors to respond effectively to the needs of risk managers.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO METHODS OF ANALYSIS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF FOOD ADDITIVES AND CONTAMINANTS IN FOODS⁵(Agenda Item 5)

9.   No additional information in response to CL 1996/11-FAC on methods of analysis for the determination of food additives and contaminants in foods had been received.

10.   The Committee noted that the list of methods of analyses agreed upon at its 28th Session (ALINORM 97/12, Appendix IV) had been endorsed by the 21st Session of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (10–14 March 1997), and would be forwarded to the 22^nd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption.

11.   The Committee confirmed the decision⁶ of its last session to invite comments for additional methods for food additives or contaminants based on specific criteria, with the understanding that this item will be discussed in future sessions under Other Business.

ENDORSEMENT AND/OR REVISION OF MAXIMUM LEVELS FOR FOOD ADDITIVES IN CODEX STANDARDS⁷(Agenda Item 6)

12.   The Committee agreed that all proposals for food additive levels forwarded for endorsement by other Codex Committees would need to be reviewed before they are included in the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA). The Committee decided to endorse the food additive provisions in Codex Standards as proposed (see Appendix II), with the following exceptions:

Draft Standard for Canned Bamboo Shoot

13.   Tartaric acid (used at GMP) was temporarily endorsed pending finalization of the GSFA because this substance had a numerical ADI.

⁵ CX/FAC 97/3 (not issued).
⁶ ALINORM 97/12, paras. 26–30.
⁷ CX/FAC 97/4

Draft Standard for Crackers from Marine and Freshwater Fish Crustacean and Molluscan Shellfish

14.   The provision for “Polyphosphates” was temporarily endorsed pending finalization of the GSFA because this substance had a numerical ADI. The Committee changed the function of polyphosphates to “sequestrant” from “food conditioner” as the latter technological function was not covered under the phosphate group.

Standard for Quick Frozen Fish Sticks (Fish Fingers), Fish Portions and Fish Fillets - Breaded or in Batter

15.   The JECFA Secretariat informed the Committee that the temporary ADI for sodium aluminium phosphate, basic and acidic (INS 541) had been replaced by a Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake of 7 mg/kg body weight for aluminium from all sources. The Observer from the EC suggested, and the Committee agreed, to add provisions for other thickeners such as processed eucheuma seaweed (INS 407a) to all standards where provisions were made for carrageenan in document CX/FAC 97/4.

Standard for Quick Frozen Shrimps or Prawns

16.   The delegation of Sweden made a reservation for the use of Ponceau 4R (INS 124). The delegation of Brazil suggested the technological function of “acidity regulators” assigned to phosphates should be reviewed as these compounds were also used as water retention agents in similar products.

Standard for Canned Shrimps or Prawns

17.   The delegation of the USA and the Observer from the EC made a reservation in regard to the use of amaranth (INS 123) and the delegations of Sweden, Norway and Poland made reservations on all colourants.

Draft Revised Standard for Butter

18.   β-carotene (INS 160) was temporarily endorsed due to the difference in ADI-status of synthetic and natural β-carotene. The Committee temporarily endorsed provisions for acidity regulators, noting that several of these had an ADI of not specified and as such could be used at levels consistent with good manufacturing practice (GMP). The delegation of the USA reserved its position in regard to the use of acidity regulators in butter.

Draft Revised Standard for Milkfat Products

19.   The Committee withdrew the proposed levels of synthetic gamma tocopherol (INS 308) and synthetic delta tocopherol (INS 309) as they had not been evaluated by JECFA.

Draft Revised Standard for Sweetened Condensed Milk

20.   Aspartame (INS 951) was not endorsed as the standard did not contain specific conditions for its use, for example whether its use was restricted to certain reduced energy products covered by the standard. The Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products was requested to clarify this matter.

Draft Revised Standard for Cheese

21.   The delegation of France proposed the inclusion of vegetable carbon (INS 153) under GMP conditions and to raise the limit for annatto extract (INS 160b) to a maximum level of 35 mg/kg on bixin/norbixin for orange coloured and 15 mg/kg for normal coloured cheeses in order to accommodate dehydration of cheese during ripening. The delegation of Germany suggested the inclusion of sorbic acid (INS 200) and sorbates (INS 201, 202) for surface treatment of ripened cheese under GMP conditions.

22.   The delegation of Switzerland reserved its opinion on the use of curcumin (INS 100) and copper chlorophylls (INS 141).

Draft Standards for Edible Fats and Oils Not Covered by Individual Standards

23.   β-carotene was temporarily endorsed due to the difference in ADI status of synthetic and natural β-carotene.

Other Commodities

24.   The delegation of Denmark asked for clarification of the endorsed colours in the Codex Standard for Luncheon Meat.

RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES: PROPOSED EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT METHODS IN SUPPORT OF CODEX GENERAL STANDARD FOR FOOD ADDITIVES⁸(Agenda Item 7)

25.   The Committee thanked the UK delegation for its discussion paper which gave new insights on how to address the issue of exposure assessment for food additives. The Chairman of the ad hoc Working Group stressed the complexity of developing exposure assessment methods.

26.   The Committee agreed that the budget method should be used to screen additives which require further assessment of their exposure, and that an appropriate number of these additives be referred to JECFA for the evaluation of data on probable human exposure (see paras. 32–34).

CONSIDERATION OF THE CODEX GENERAL STANDARD FOR FOOD ADDITIVES

Report of the Working Group on the Codex General Standard for Food Additives⁹ (Agenda Item 8a)

27.   The meeting of the ad hoc Working Group on the Codex General Standard for Food Additives was chaired by Dr. Rulis (USA); Mrs. B. Fabech (Denmark) acted as rapporteur. The Chairman of the Working Group gave a short introduction to the Working Group Report and thanked all delegations for their constructive input. The Committee made the following decisions based on the Working Group's recommendations:

Consideration of the Proposed Draft Revised Preamble to the Codex General Standard for Food Additives¹⁰(Agenda Item 8b)

28.   The Committee agreed to forward the draft revised preamble to the Codex General Standard for Food Additives (Appendix III) to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption at Step 8 in June 1997. The delegation of Japan reserved its position on this decision in view of the fact that the Standard implied that all substances to which an INS number had been allocated should be considered as food additives whereas some of those substances were considered as food in Japan.

⁸ CX/FAC 97/5 and comments from the United States, Uruguay, CEFIC, ISA, ISDC (CX/FAC 97/5-Add. 1); Canada, United States, ELC (CRD 3); Denmark, Norway, CI, IFCGA (CRD 5), and; Philippines and the EC (CRD 7).
⁹ Conference Room Document 1
¹⁰ CX/FAC 97/6 and comments from IFAC (CX/FAC 97/6-Add.1); Norway (CRD 5); Canada, Denmark, France, Norway, Spain, USA (CRD 6), and; EC (CRD 7).

Consideration of Proposed Draft Schedules for Antioxidants, Preservatives, Stabilizers/Thickeners and Sweeteners¹¹ (Agenda Item 8c)

29.   The proposed draft schedules were developed by the United States using data previously collected at the request of the CCFAC.¹² The Committee agreed to delete the category “Foods in General” in the relevant schedules for additives with a numerical ADI. It was further agreed that the schedules for these additives should be compressed or otherwise simplified, as appropriate, to facilitate the development of a proposal which included maximum limits for consideration at the Committee's next meeting. Inconsistencies between the schedules and Codex Commodity Standards should also be eliminated at the same time, but the main principle of the structure should not be changed.

30.   The Committee agreed to advance the revised provisions for additives with a numerical ADI, including those provisions submitted by Thailand, to the Commission for adoption at Step 5 (see Appendix V).

Consideration of Worksheets for Colours/Colour Retention Agents, Bulking Agents and Emulsifiers¹³(Agenda Item 8d)

31.   The Committee requested the US delegation to compress the information already contained in CX/FAC 97/8 to create proposals for circulation, comment and discussion at the Committee's next meeting.

Consideration of the Proposed Draft Revised Annex A¹⁴(Agenda Item 8e)

32.   The 28^th CCFAC had accepted the offer of the United Kingdom to prepare a revised version of Annex A (envisaged in the initial version of the Preamble to the GSFA) on the basis of their paper on exposure assessment.¹⁵

33.   In view of the discussions concerning exposure assessment methods in support of the GSFA (see paras. 25–26), the Committee agreed to prepare a new Annex A containing a description only of the budget method and its use for prioritising additives for JECFA review of exposure. It was also noted that the Draft Revised Preamble did not contain a reference to an Annex A for the time being. The Committee agreed to discontinue the consideration of the tiered approach described in CX/FAC 97/9.

34.   The Committee accepted the offer of Denmark, assisted by France and the United Kingdom, to prepare a revised Annex A, containing a new version of the budget method, for circulation and comment prior to its next meeting.

¹¹ CX/FAC 97/7 and comments from Norway, CI (CRD 5); Canada, France, Norway, Spain, Thailand, United States, IPPA (CRD 6) and; the EC (CRD 7).
¹² ALINORM 97/12, paras 37–38 and 48.
¹³ CX/FAC 97/8 and comments from Japan (CX/FAC 97/8-add. 1); Norway, CI, IFCGA (CRD 5); Canada, Norway, Spain, CEFIC, CISDA, ELC, ICA, NATCOL (CRD 6), and; the EC (CRD 7).
¹⁴ CX/FAC 97/9 and comments from Japan (CX/FAC 97/9-Add. 1); Denmark, Norway, IFCGA (CRD 5); France, Norway, Spain, United States (CRD 6), and; the EC (CRD 7).
¹⁵ ALINORM 97/12, para 39.

Consideration of Technological Justification and Need for the Use of Food Additives¹⁶ (Agenda Item 8f)

35.   Several delegations expressed their concern that some of the maximum use levels reported in the schedules were higher than technologically necessary. The Committee considered a paper prepared by New Zealand, Australia and Iceland on technical justification and need. The paper established the position that approval of a food additive by a member state should in the first instance be taken as evidence of technological justification and need. Furthermore, in deciding how to include a provision in the General Standard, the Committee may need to consider whether a use identified to it may be necessary only, for example, for a specific food or geographic region. The Committee requested that comments on the documents as currently drafted be submitted for consideration at its next meeting.

General Considerations

Additives with Non-Numerical Acceptable Daily Intakes

36.   After a long discussion, the Committee agreed to endorse the use of additives with non-numerical ADIs for use in foods in general according to good manufacturing practice and without specific reference to their technological function. It also agreed to annex a list of food categories or individual foods where the use of these additives was not allowed or was restricted, based on a similar list currently in effect in the European Community. The Committee agreed to forward these additives and the list to the Commission for adoption at Step 8 (see Appendix IV and Annex to Appendix IV), with the understanding that governments would have the opportunity to submit comments at this step in accordance with the provisions of the Codex Procedural Manual.

Food Additive Classes to Study Next

37.   The Committee agreed to issue a Circular Letter requesting information on the remaining additives with numerical ADI's, except flavouring agents, as had been accomplished on previous requests.

38.   The Committee decided to convene the ad hoc Working Group prior to its next session under the Chairmanship of the USA to refine proposals on Schedules 1 and 2 of the General Standard of Food Additives.

CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE IDENTITY AND PURITY OF FOOD ADDITIVES¹⁷(Agenda Item 9)

39.   The Committee considered the specifications arising from the 46th JECFA meeting (FAO FNP 52 - Add. 4). The Committee agreed to forward the substances in Categories I and II (see Appendix VI) to the Commission for adoption as Codex Advisory Specifications.

40.   The Committee expressed its appreciation to the ad hoc Working Group, which was chaired by P. Kuznesof (USA); H. Wallin (Finland) and I. Meyland (Denmark) acted as rapporteur and category monitor, respectively. It re-established the ad hoc Working Group under the Chairmanship of the USA, with the task of reviewing specifications arising from the 49^th JECFA meeting.

¹⁶ CX/FAC 97/10 and CX/FAC 97/10-Add. 1 (not issued).
¹⁷ Request for comments (CL 1996/46-FAC) and Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Specifications (CRD 2).

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL NUMBERING SYSTEM¹⁸(Agenda item 10)

41.   The Committee agreed that Sodium Caseinate and Edible Gelatine were considered foods and should not be assigned and INS number. It proposed that the INS numbers 425 and 960 be assigned to Konjac Flour and to Stevioside respectively for circulation and comment at Step 3. The delegation of Japan, supported by the Observer of the EC, reserved their position on the assignment of an INS number to Konjac Flour as they considered it to be a food. Some delegations questioned the appropriateness of the use of the name Konjac Flour.

42.   The Committee considered the proposal from ESA to revise the numbering of modified starches. As JECFA had scheduled an evaluation of modified starches for specifications at its 49^th meeting it was decided to postpone a decision on this issue.

43.   The Committee further decided that amendments to the INS system will be maintained as an agenda item, with comments to be requested on a standing basis.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE INVENTORY OF PROCESSING AIDS¹⁹(Agenda item 11)

44.   No amendments were received. It was agreed that comments would be requested on a standing basis for future discussion under Other Business.

ENDORSEMENT OF CONTAMINANT PROVISIONS IN CODEX STANDARDS²⁰(Agenda Item 12)

Draft Standard for Named Animal Fats
Draft Standard for Edible Fats and Oils not Covered by Individual Standards
Draft Standard for Named Vegetable Oils

45.   The Committee endorsed the footnote that “The products covered by the provisions of this standard shall comply with maximum limits being established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, but in the meantime, the following limits will apply”. The proposed maximum levels for lead and arsenic were temporarily endorsed pending their inclusion in the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods.

Draft Revised Standard for Butter

46.   The maximum level for lead was temporarily endorsed pending its inclusion in the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods. The levels for copper and iron were not endorsed as these substances were considered to be quality, rather than safety, provisions.

Draft Revised Standard for Milkfat Products

47.   The levels for copper and iron were not endorsed as these substances were considered to be quality, rather than safety provisions.

¹⁸ Comments from Brazil (CRD 5) and the European Starch Association (CX/FAC 97/11).
¹⁹ CX/FAC 97/12 (not issued).
²⁰ CX/FAC 97/13 (see Appendix II for a listing of endorsements)

Draft Standard for Canned Bamboo Shoots

48.   The proposed maximum levels for tin and lead were considered to be too high. The levels were temporarily endorsed pending further information from the Codex Coordinating Committee for Asia.

Revised Codex Standard for Sugars

49.   The proposed level for lead was considered to be too high; the information was considered absolete. The Committee also questioned the need for a limit for arsenic as the contaminant was not normally found in sugar. The level for copper was temporarily endorsed as the Committee felt that if a value was necessary it should be based on a specific figure. Therefore, the levels for these substances were temporarily endorsed pending further information from the Chairman of the sine die Codex Committee on Sugars.

METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPLES FOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT IN THE CODEX GENERAL STANDARD FOR CONTAMINANTS AND TOXINS IN FOODS²¹(Agenda Item 13)

50.   As document CX/FAC 97/14 was not available, the Committee decided to postpone the discussion on methodology for exposure assessment in the Codex General for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods until its next session.

GOVERNMENT COMMENTS ON ANNEXES IV AND V OF THE CODEX GENERAL STANDARD FOR CONTAMINANTS AND TOXINS IN FOOD²²(Agenda Item 14)

51.   The Committee noted that Annexes IV and V of the Codex General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food were adopted by the 43^rd Session of the Executive Committee at Step 5. Comments at Step 6 were requested under CL 1996/29-FAC.

52.   The delegation of Norway informed the Committee of a Nordic Project on Zearalenone. The Committee decided to accept the offer of Norway to prepare a position paper on Zearalenone, in close cooperation with other Nordic countries, for circulation and comment prior to its next Session.

53.   The Committee forwarded the introduction section of Annex IV and the whole of Annex V to the Commission for adoption at step 8 (see Appendix VII).

MYCOTOXINS IN FOOD AND FEED

Position Paper on Aflatoxins²³(Agenda Item 15a)

54.   The United Kingdom briefly presented the position paper, which had been revised according to the recommendations of the 28^th CCFAC²⁴. Attention was drawn to the conclusions and recommendations, including the need for sampling plans for bulk commodities and small retail packs and specific maximum levels for commodities as traded. Several delegations expressed the view that intake estimates presented in Table 2 of the positions paper greatly overstated potential aflatoxin intake. The Committee agreed that preventive measures were an effective means to reduce contamination.

²¹ CX/FAC 97/14 (not issued)
²² ALINORM 97/12, Appendix VII and comments submitted by Norway, Spain and Sweden (CX/FAC 97/15).
²³ CX/FAC 97/16 and Corrigendum.
²⁴ ALINORM 97/12, paras. 71–75.

55.   The 28^th CCFAC held the draft maximum level of 0.05 μg/kg for aflatoxin M1 in milk at step 7 pending the JECFA evaluation²⁵. Several delegations expressed support for the proposed value of 0.05 μg/kg. Other delegations were of the opinion that a ten fold higher level (0.5 μg/kg) was adequate to protect public safety and would not impose unrealistic constraints on production. The Committee was unable to reach a consensus, and agreed to maintain the current level at Step 7 and to collect more information on the public health implications of a higher level and the potential economic problems from the lower level as proposed.

Government Comments on the draft Codex Guideline Levels and Sampling Plans for Total Aflatoxin in Peanuts²⁶(Agenda Item 15b)

56.   The 28^th CCFAC deferred a decision on the draft guideline level and sampling plan for total aflatoxins in peanuts intended for further processing because of a lack of consensus²⁷. The Committee had returned the guideline level and sampling plan to Step 6 for further comment.

57.   Several delegations supported the proposal to advance the guideline level and sampling plan for final adoption at Step 8. As it concerned peanuts intended for further processing, the level of 15 μg/kg was considered adequate to protect the health of consumers while facilitating international trade. However, several other delegations were of the opinion that a lower level of 10 μg/kg for peanuts intended for further processing was necessary to protect consumers.

58.   The Committee did not reach consensus. It decided to maintain the draft level and sampling plan at Step 7 and, pending the upcoming JECFA evaluation of aflatoxin, agreed to collect more information on the potential economic problems from a level of 10 μg/kg and the public health implications of a level of 15, as compared to 10 μg/kg.

59.   The Committee noted that the CCMAS had recently endorsed a method of analysis for aflatoxins in peanuts suitable for a level of 15 μg/kg, at a time when lower guideline levels were still under discussion. If a lower level were adopted, it might be necessary for CCMAS to consider a new method and this would not be an efficient use of its time. The need for CCFAC to be sure about final levels before referring methods of analysis for endorsement by CCMAS was noted.

Government Comments on the Draft Codex Code of Practice for the Reduction of Aflatoxin B₁ in Raw Materials and Supplemental Feedingstuffs for Milk Producing Animals²⁸(Agenda Item 15c)

60.   The draft Code of Practice was adopted by the 43rd Session of the Executive Committee at Step 5. Comments were requested at Step 6 under CL 1996/29-FAC.

61.   The Committee thanked Canada for its work on the Code of Practice and agreed to forward it with minor amendments to the Commission for adoption at Step 8. The draft Code of Practice is attached at Appendix IX.

²⁵ ALINORM 97/12, paras. 76–79.
²⁶ ALINORM 97/12, Appendix VIII and comments from Sweden and Thailand (CX/FAC 97/17) and the United States (CRD 4).
²⁷ ALINORM 97/12, paras. 80–83.
²⁸ ALINORM 97/12, Appendix IX and comments submitted by Sweden (CX/FAC 97/18), IDF (CRD 3) and the United States (CRD 4).

Government Comments on the Position Paper on Ochratoxin A²⁹(Agenda Item 15d)

62.   The delegation of Sweden briefly introduced the Position Paper on Ochratoxin A that was previously discussed at the 28th CCFAC³⁰. The delegation drew attention to recent data for wine and grapes. As cereals were the main source for human intake of Ochratoxin A, a maximum level of 5 μg/kg for this commodity was recommended.

63.   The Committee expressed its appreciation for the work done by Sweden. It emphasised the need for proper sampling methods and methods of analysis to support a maximum level and the value of a Code of Practice for storage and handling.

64.   It was noted that although JECFA evaluated Ochratoxin A in 1995, its genotoxicity was still under discussion and an updated risk assessment may be necessary in the future.

65.   The need for more data about the geographical and seasonal effects on the occurrence of Ochratoxin A was highlighted. Some delegations supported the proposed maximum level (5μg/kg) for cereals, while others preferred higher or lower levels. Attention was drawn to the principle in the General Standard that the establishment of levels was limited to the product as traded internationally.

66.   The Committee accepted the offer of the delegation of Sweden to revise the position paper based on the above discussions and to include a proposed level for further consideration at its next meeting.

INDUSTRIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS IN FOODS

Government Comments on the Draft Guideline Levels for Cadmium and Lead in Cereals, Pulses and Legumes³¹ (Agenda Item 16a)

Cadmium

67.   The Committee noted that JECFA would re-evaluate Cadmium at its 1999 session and therefore, decided to retain the draft guideline level of 0.1 mg/kg for cereals, pulses and legumes at Step 7. It accepted the offer of Denmark, assisted by France and the Netherlands, to prepare a compilation of existing data on cadmium for discussion at its next meeting. The Committee considered whether a maximum level for commodities such as poppy seeds and sunflower seeds was necessary considering their small contribution to overall cadmium intake.

Lead

68.   The Committee discontinued consideration of the guideline level of 0.5 mg/kg for lead in cereals, pulses and legumes (at Step 7) in view of its decision to include a level of 0.2 mg/kg in the General Standard of Contaminants and Toxins in Foods (see paras. 69–70).

²⁹ CX/FAC 97/19 (comments submitted by Thailand).
³⁰ ALINORM 97/12, paras. 88–90).
³¹ ALINORM 97/12, Appendix VIII and CX/FAC 97/20 (comments from Spain and Sweden).

Government Comments on the Proposed Draft Maximum Levels for Lead³² (Agenda Item 16b)

69.   The Committee recalled that the proposed draft maximum levels for lead were circulated for comment at Step 3 after its previous Session, with the understanding that the levels would eventually be included in the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods. The Committee considered whether a maximum level for commodities such as mushrooms was necessary considering their small contribution to overall lead intake.

70.   The Committee agreed to a number of variations and forwarded a revised version of the document to the Commission for adoption at Step 5 (see Appendix X). The Committee requested scientific justification to be provided when making proposals to amend the list.

Government Comments on Cadmium³³ (Agenda 16c)

71.   The Committee reconfirmed its earlier decision (see para. 67), that Denmark, assisted by France and the Netherlands, would prepare a compilation of existing data on cadmium for discussion at its next meeting.

Position Papers on Arsenic, Patulin and Tin (Agenda Item 16d)

Arsenic³⁴

72.   The Position Paper on Arsenic was introduced by the delegation of Denmark. Special attention was given to the conclusions and recommendations concerning the different forms of arsenic in food and the environment and the opportunity for diminishing contamination by source directed measures. Future action was proposed only for those arsenic forms that were of toxicological concern, namely inorganic As(III) and As(V). The potential for high intake of arsenic from drinking water, seafood and seaweed was noted.

73.   Although it was fully agreed that maximum levels should apply to specific forms of arsenic, the Committee considered it too early to suspend the current maximum levels based on total arsenic recommended by Codex Alimentarius. This discussion was postponed until the Committee's nest Session.

74.   The Committee thanked Denmark for its efforts and accepted the offer of the delegation to further progress the position paper by integrating all comments for circulation, comment and consideration at its next meeting.

Patulin³⁵

75.   The Position Paper on Patulin was presented by France. Analytical data from the United Kingdom and the United States were included. Patulin contamination can occur in fruit, particularly apple. The amount of apple juice consumed by children may be of concern in some countries. Levels can be controlled by good agricultural practice (GAP) and GMP procedures (elimination of the spoiled fruit). Alcoholic fermentation destroys patulin. A maximum level of 25 μg/kg was proposed for apple juice to protect the consumer.

³² ALINORM 97/12, Appendix X and comments submitted by Sweden, Thailand (CX/FAC 97/21); IDF (CRD 3); United States (CRD 4) and South Africa (CRD 7).
³³ Comments from Japan (CX/FAC 97/22 and CRD 5).
³⁴ CX/FAC 97/23-Part I and comments from Sweden, United Kingdom and AOAC (CX/FAC 97/23-Part I-Add. 1); Canada and Norway (CRD 3) and Germany (CRD 5).
³⁵ CX/FAC 97/23-Part II.

76.   Discussions concerned the high consumption of apple juice by infants and children, the analytical methodology, the group 3 carcinogenicity classification (IARC) and the possibilities to avoid contamination by GAP and GMP. The Committee did not reach a consensus on the proposed level of 25 μg/kg. Several countries suggested that a level of 50 μg/kg would be adequate to protect public health.

77.   The Committee thanked France for its efforts and decided to request additional information on Patulin for submission to France. The Committee accepted the offer of the French delegation to update the position paper on Patulin for circulation before the next meeting. The existence of an EC project, coordinated by the United Kingdom, to study a new method of analysis for patulin was noted. It was requested that the method be shared with the CCFAC.

Tin³⁶

78.   Australia briefly introduced the Position Paper on Tin, which was prepared by Australia, Indonesia and Thailand. The paper focused on the problems of inorganic tin. Canned food was the major route for human tin exposure. The highest tin levels occurred in aggressive foods like pineapple, fruit juices and tomato paste in unlacquered tin cans. Tin was not highly toxic, although gastric irritations had been reported from acute exposure of 100 ppm in the food. No need existed to set a general tin limit. An upper limit of 250 mg/kg tin in canned food was suggested in the Position Paper.

79.   In addition to the question of canned foods, the occurrence and relevance of organotin in fish and other sea food and the establishment of a lower level in liquid food in comparison to solid food were discussed. The delegation of Germany suggested an upper limit of 200 mg/kg in liquid canned foods and 250 mg/kg in other canned foods. The Committee considered it premature to discuss the suggested upper limit of 250 mg/kg tin in canned food.

80.   The Committee considered the position paper a good starting point and thanked Australia, Indonesia and Thailand for their efforts. The Committee requested governments to send additional information to the author countries to enable the preparation of an updated version of the paper for further discussion at its next meeting.

REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON PRIORITIES³⁷ (Agenda Item 17)

81.   Mr. R. Top (The Netherlands) introduced the Report of the ad hoc Working Group on Priorities for JECFA. Dr. J. Herrman (JECFA) acted as Rapporteur. The Committee agreed to the priorities proposed by the working group as set out in appendix VIII.

82.   The Committee decided that the request of Consumers International that JECFA re-evaluate all food additives and contaminants with potential hormonal (endocrine disruption) activity could not be considered until Consumers International could provide more specific information about the substances to be evaluated.

³⁶ CX/FAC 97/23-Part III.
³⁷ Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Priorities (CRD 8) and comments submitted by Sweden (CX/FAC 97/24) and Consumers International (CRD 5).

OTHER BUSINESS AND FUTURE WORK (Agenda Item 18)

Carry-Over of Sulphur Dioxide

83.   The Committee recalled its previous decision³⁸ to collect information on the carry-over of sulphur dioxide from raw material to the end product in the revised Codex Standard for Canned Shrimps and Prawns and related products, as requested by the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products.³⁹ As government comments were not submitted in response to the subsequent CCFAC request (CL 1996/11-FAC), it was decided to advise the CCFFP that additional information was not available.

Maximum Level for Sulphur Dioxide in the Codex Standard for Dried Apricots

84.   The 28^th Session of the Committee agreed to collect additional information on the request of the delegation of Turkey to raise the limit for sulphur dioxide in the Codex Standard for Dried Apricots from 2000 to 2500 mg/kg.⁴⁰ Government comments were not received in response to the subsequent CCFAC request for information (CL 1996/11-FAC) and it was decided to maintain the current maximum level of 2000 mg/kg for sulphur dioxide in the Codex Standard for Dried Apricots.

Code of Practice on Source Directed Measures to Reduce Contamination of Foodstuffs

85.   The Committee recalled its previous decision to discontinue the consideration of the above Code. It was noted that the Codex General Principles of Food Hygiene addressed source directed measures to reduce contamination of foodstuffs⁴¹ in general. The Committee decided to examine whether more specific measures were needed and therefore, accepted the offer of Sweden to elaborate a Code of Practice on Source Directed Measures to Reduce Contamination of Foodstuffs for circulation, comment and consideration at its next Session.

DATE AND PLACE OF NEXT SESSION (Agenda Item 19)

86.   The Committee was informed that the 30^th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants was tentatively scheduled to be held in The Hague from 9–13 March 1998.

³⁸ ALINORM 97/12, para. 7.
³⁹ ALINORM 95/18, para. 93.
⁴⁰ ALINORM 97/12, para. 8.
⁴¹ ALINORM 97/12, para. 91–92.

ANNEX

CODEX COMMITTEE ON FOOD ADDITIVES AND CONTAMINANTS
Current Status of Work