107. The Commission had before it for consideration at Step 8 the above-mentioned draft standards which were contained in Appendices V and VI of ALINORM 72/20A, Appendices IV and V of ALINORM 72/20 and Appendices VII, II, III and IV of ALINORM 72/20A and Appendices II and III of ALINORM 72/20, respectively.
108. The Rapporteur (Mr. L. Beacham, USA) informed the Commission that the draft standards for Canned Mushrooms, Canned Asparagus, Canned Plums, Canned Raspberries and Canned Fruit Cocktail had, in accordance with the decisions taken by the Commission at its Eighth Session (paragraph 235, ALINORM 71/31), been reconsidered by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables at its Ninth Session held from 12 to 16 June 1972. These draft standards had been re-examined by the Committee in the light of the government comments which had been made on them when they were before the Eighth Session of the Commission for consideration at Step 8 (ALINORM 71/30 and Addenda) and also in the light of government comments received on them subsequent to the Commission's Eighth Session. The Rapporteur also recalled that the Draft Standards for Processed Tomato Concentrates, Canned Green Peas, Canned Mandarin Oranges and Canned Pears had been advanced to Step 8 by the Committee at its Eighth Session held from 7 to 11 June 1971, for consideration by the Commission at its Ninth Session. The Draft Standard for Raisins had been advanced to Step 8 by the Committee at its Ninth Session. The Step 8 comments which had been received on the above standards were set out in document ALINORM 72/30, and addenda I, II and III.
109. The Rapporteur referred to the amendments which the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables, at its Ninth Session, had recommended should be made to the draft standards for Canned Mandarin Oranges and Canned Pears. These amendments, which concerned the sections on packing media and labelling, were consequential upon the decisions which the Committee had taken concerning these matters in re-examining the standards for Canned Plums, Canned Raspberries and Canned Fruit Cocktail. The proposed amendments had been circulated to governments in advance of the Commission's session.
110. The Rapporteur informed the Commission that he had reviewed all the Step 8 comments on these standards and that all the matters of substance had been considered by the Committee either at its last session or at one of its previous sessions. In his introductory comments, he outlined the main points which the Committee had to resolve and which were explained in the Reports of the Committee.
111. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany drew the Commission's attention to the comments of the Federal Republic of Germany as set out in document ALINORM 72/30 on the Step 8 standards for processed fruits and vegetables. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that, while these comments reflected the present situation in his country in regard to these products, he would refrain from pressing for a discussion of his comments, in order not to hold up the advancement of the standards. The delegate of Japan reiterated that the previous position of Japan remained unchanged as regards food additives and labelling, in particular, labelling of date of manufacture as well as name and address of the manufacturer.
112. Several delegates pointed out that some of the additives listed in the Food Additives section of the standards considered were not permitted to be used in the products concerned under their national regulations. It was pointed out, however, that it was recognized that not all of the additives listed in the standards would be acceptable to all the Member Countries, and that it would be open to those countries which did not permit the use of some of the additives or classes of additives listed, to indicate this in their replies when the standards were submitted to them for acceptance.
113. The Commission re-affirmed its earlier decision that food additives which had not been endorsed or were still subject to endorsement by the Codex Committee on Food Additives would be deleted from Recommended Standards issued to governments for acceptance, but would be reinstated as soon as an endorsement had been obtained. The delegates of Poland and Portugal pointed out that this procedure could create difficulties as regards the acceptance of Recommended Standards, since the re-insertion of such additives would mean that some governments would have to reconsider their previous acceptance of food additives sections.
114. The delegate of Spain stated that there was a lacuna in the standards in that they did not contain a section on contaminants, including pesticide residues. It was pointed out, however, that the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables was examining the matter of contaminants in these products and hoped to be in a position to submit suitable proposals for adoption by the Commission, when it was in possession of the necessary data which it was at present collecting. Such proposals would be put before the Codex Committee on Food Additives for endorsement before being submitted to the Commission. The Commission recalled that at its Seventh session, it had recommended that the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables should consider, in addition to tin, the subject of other contaminants in all their standards, including those which had been adopted at step 8. It was pointed out, however, that in the meantime the section on hygiene in the standards provided adequate safeguards. As regards pesticide residues, it was noted that tolerances adopted by the Commission were issued separately for acceptance by governments. Any tolerance for pesticide residues applying to the products under consideration in the standards would, after having been approved by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues and adopted by the Commission, be referenced in the standards, in accordance with the Format for Codex Commodity Standards.
115. The Commission considered the recommendation of the Ninth Session of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables that the use of pectin should be provided for in this standard, within the overall tolerance of 1%, applicable to modified starches, vegetable gums, alginates and propylene glycol alginate. The Commission noted that the use of pectin had been provided for in certain other standards and that it was only because the Ninth Session of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables took place after the last session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives, that the proposal to include pectin in the standard had not come before the Codex Committee on Food Additives for endorsement. However, having heard a statement by the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Additives that there would be no difficulties about the endorsement of this particular food additive, the Commission decided to provide for its use in the standards, in accordance with the proposal which had been made by the Commodity Committee. The Commission wished to stress, however, that although it had authorized the inclusion of this additive in the standard without the formal endorsement of the Codex Committee on Food Additives, this action should not be regarded as a precedent.
116. The delegate of India asked to be placed on record as having a reservation with regard to the drained weight figure of 53% for this product, which in his view should be 50%.
117. The Commission also adopted the amendment which had been proposed by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling to sub-section 6.3 of the standard dealing with net contents. The amended version of sub-section 6.3 would read as follows:
“The net contents shall be declared by weight in either the metric (“Système International” units) or avoirdupois or both systems of measurement as required by the country in which the product is sold, except that mushrooms packed in regular or natural packs as described in paragraph 1.5(a) shall carry a declaration of drained weight of the food.”
Adoption of the Draft Standard for Canned Mushrooms at Step 8
118. The Commission adopted as a Recommended Standard the Draft Standard for Canned Mushrooms, as amended above, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of worldwide Codex Standards.
119. For the reasons given in the case of the standard for Canned Mushrooms, the Commission also agreed to provide for the use of pectin in the Draft Standard for Canned Asparagus. The Commission also agreed to an editorial amendment under sub-section 7.1.1 of the standard proposed by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling and dealing with the name of the product. The amended version of the sub-section 7.1.1 would read as follows:
“The name of the product shall be ‘asparagus’ and the word ‘peeled’ or ‘unpeeled’ shall be declared, as appropriate, if national legislation so requires.”
Adoption of the Draft Standard for Canned Asparagus at Step 8
120. The Commission adopted as a Recommended Standard the Draft Standard for Canned Asparagus, as amended above, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Worldwide Codex Standards.
121. The delegate of Japan, referring to the section of the standard dealing with permitted ingredients, stated that, in his view, no seasonings or flavourings other than salt should be permitted to be used in tomato concentrates intended for use in the manufacture of tomato juice or other tomato products, as such additions would alter the flavour and taste of the tomato concentrates, and this would present difficulties for manufacturers of tomato juice and other tomato products in meeting standards laid down for such products. In this connection, he referred to the Recommended Codex Standard for Tomato Juice, which does not permit the addition of any seasonings except salt. It was pointed out, however, that tomato concentrate had many other uses than those mentioned by the delegate of Japan and that the standard did not require that seasonings and flavourings be used: their use was optional.
122. Attention was drawn to a typing error in sub-section 2.2.1 of the standard, where one of the headings under “Examples” should have read “average must be notless than” instead of “average must be less than”. Several delegates stated that the product designation and provisions concerning the name of the product did not conform to practices in their countries. It was pointed out, however, that this subject had been discussed very thoroughly by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables, and that the conclusion of the Committee as reflected in the standard and as explained in detail in the Report of the Committee was a compromise designed not to present difficulties for any particular country.
123. A number of delegates had reservations concerning the mould count provision in the standard (not more than 50% positive fields). It was explained that at Committee sessions some delegates had sought a higher figure and others a lower figure for positive fields and that the figure of 50% was a compromise figure. The delegate of Portugal reserved his position regarding the use of pH regulating agents in tomato concentrates. The observer of the Libyan Arab Republic reserved his position concerning the section on contaminants, stating that the following maximum levels should be provided for in the standard: Copper - 50 ppm; lead - 6 ppm; zinc - 300 ppm; other metals 6 ppm; total 362 ppm.
Adoption of the Draft Standard for Processed Tomato Concentrate at Step 8
124. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the draft standard for Processed Tomato Concentrate at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards. The delegates of Spain and Italy reserved their positions regarding this decision.
125. Several delegations stated that it was essential to provide for obligatory size grading for this product and that the absence of obligatory size grading seriously lessened the value of the standard as an instrument in facilitating international trade in this product. It was pointed out that size grading of peas had been fully and thoroughly discussed at several sessions of the Committee, as the Reports of the Committee showed. A number of systems of size grading had been considered by the Committee, including the system indicated in the Recommended Standard for Quick-Frozen Peas. It had not been found possible to reach agreement on a sizing system to which all interested countries could subscribe. For this reason the Committee, although recognizing the great desirability of laying down a sizing system in the standard, had come to the conclusion that the best that could be done at this time would be to include a provision in the standard allowing optional size labelling according to national legislation. Several delegates at the Commission's session thought that despite the difficulties, another attempt should be made to reach an agreement on sizing, and that, in the meantime, the standard should not be adopted at Step 8. Others, however, saw no reasonable prospect of achieving this - at least not in the immediate future. The suggestion was made that the Coordinating Committee for Europe might be able to play a useful role in connection with the problem of sizing, in that it would provide a forum for discussions with a view to reaching agreement on the sizing of peas at the European level. The point was also made that it should be mandatory to label unsized peas “unsized”.
126. The attention of the Commission was drawn to the fact that, through a typographical error, pectin had not been provided for in the standard, and it noted that this error would be corrected. A number of delegates thought that the use of colours should not be permitted in the standard.
Adoption of the Draft Standard for Canned Green Peas at Step 8
127. The Commission adopted, as a Recommended Standard, the draft Standard for Canned Green Peas at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards. The Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables had stressed the need for governments to give special attention to sizing when considering acceptance of the standard. The Commission recognized the desirability of providing for an internationally acceptable system of size grading in the Recommended Standard and expressed the hope that, at a future time, this would be achieved. As a step in this direction, the Commission suggested that the Coordinating Committee for Europe might consider the subject of size grading of canned peas with a view to reaching agreement on a European level on this subject. It was agreed that, when it had achieved this objective, it should report to the Commission, which would then decide what would be the most appropriate course to follow, according to the procedure for the amendment of Recommended Standards.
128. In the food additives section of the standard, several delegates considered that the level of 1,500 mg/kg of sulphur dioxide permitted in the standard was too high. It was noted that the Codex Committee on Food Additives, at its last session, had decided to postpone the endorsement of sulphur dioxide at the level of 1,500 mg/kg, and had requested the Commodity Committee to re-examine the level. The Commodity Committee had done so, and had, for the reasons given in the Commodity Committee's report, decided that it was necessary to retain the level of 1,500 mg/kg for bleached raisins only. Because the Commodity Committee met after the last session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives, the Codex Committee on Food Additives did not have an opportunity of considering the Commodity Committee's response, and consequently, this provision had not been endorsed by the Food Additives Committee. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany, supported by several other delegates, stated that he was opposed to the use of Mineral Oil, which, in his opinion, can be replaced by mono or di-glycerides.
129. Attention was also drawn to the fact that the labelling section of this standard had not yet been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling thought that it would be desirable to give consideration to the use of the word “natural” in connection with this product.
Status of the Standard for Raisins
130. The delegate of the USA pointed out that the international trade in bleached raisins was nominal, but in view of the foregoing, the Commission decided to return the standard to the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables for reconsideration at Step 7, with particular reference to the section on food additives. This would also enable the section on food additives and the section on labelling to be put before the relevant Codex Subject Committees for endorsement.
131. Attention was drawn to the fact that the main problem which the Committee had had to resolve in this and in the other draft standards for canned fruits was the question of the number of categories of syrup strengths to be provided for. This difficulty had been resolved in the Committee. In addition, the Committee had expanded the section on packing media in this standard and in the other standards for canned fruits, with consequential labelling changes. Details of the Committee's decisions and the reasons for them were contained in the Report of the Committee's Ninth Session. The Commission noted that the Committee had considered a proposal to group plums in different categories for syrup strength purposes, but had decided not to do this because of the difficulty of determining and reaching agreement on the question of which plums fell into which category.
132. The Commission agreed to change the wording of sub-section 2.2.1 of the standard concerning the colour of the product, to correspond with the equivalent sub-section in the standard for Canned Green Peas, and to take similar action in the case of other standards before the Commission at Step 8, where this course would be applicable. The Commission accepted the proposal of the Commodity Committee that there was no need to provide for the use of acidifying agents in this product. The Commission agreed, therefore, that this provision, which the Committee had placed in square brackets, should be deleted.
133. The Commission noted that sub-sections 6.2 (List of Ingredients), 6.3 (Net Contents), 6.4 (Name and Address) and 6.5 (Country of Origin) had been in advertently omitted from the standard and should be reinstated. The Commission also noted that the sub-section on Name of the Food included a number of changes which had been made by the Commodity Committee as a consequence of the changes which had been decided upon by the Committee concerning the section of the standard on packing media. There had been no time to put these amendments before the Codex Committee on Food Labelling for endorsement, but, on the recommendation of the Chairman of the Food Labelling Committee, the Commission agreed to adopt these changes in the labelling section of the standard. While noting the request of the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling that the number of labelling matters which were by-passing the Food Labelling Committee be kept to a minimum, the Commission took the same decision in regard to the other standards for canned fruits which were before it for consideration at Step 8.
Adoption of the Draft Standard for Canned Plums at Step 8
134. The Commission adopted as a Recommended Standard, the Draft Standard for Canned Plums at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards.
135. The delegate of Hungary considered that the figure for total defects in sub-section 2.2.4 (a) and (b) should be raised from 25% to 30%. It was pointed out that the figure of 25% had been carefully considered by the Committee and represented the general consensus in the Committee. The delegate of India inquired why the maximum limits for colours in this standard were higher than in other standards which permitted the use of colours. It was pointed out that the Committee considered the technological need for the use of food additives in each product most carefully, and that it was only where a need for their use had been shown to the satisfaction of the Committee that it was prepared to agree to their use. The delegate of India stated that the use of food additives should be kept to a minimum. The delegate of Peru stated that she reserved her position on the use of colours in this product.
136. The delegate of Japan drew attention to sub-section 6.2 of the standard, List of Ingredients, and inquired whether there was not a conflict between this provision, which stated that water need not be declared and sub-section 6.2.1 of the draft standard for Canned Fruit Cocktail, which stated that water and fruit juice need not be declared. It was pointed out that in the case of canned fruit cocktail, the fruit juices used as packing media were solely the juices derived from the specified fruits defined in the Standard, whereas in the standard for canned raspberries the fruits juices used as packing media might be raspberry or other compatible fruit juices. The delegate of Japan was, however, not fully satisfied with this position as indicated by the Rapporteur, because it was not in conformity with the List of Ingredients section of the draft standard for Vinifera Type Grape Juice or of other Recommended Standards for fruit juices, which required that the fact of reconstitution, if such was the case, be declared in the list of ingredients, so as not to mislead the consumer.
Adoption of the Draft Standard for Canned Raspberries at Step 8
137. The Commission adopted as a Recommended Standard, the draft standard for Canned Raspberries, at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards.
138. The main problem in connection with this draft standard was the question of the name ‘Fruit Cocktail’ to be used only for the product described in the standard. It was explained that this problem had been fully discussed at previous sessions of the Commodity Committee, which had come to the conclusion that the name ‘Fruit Cocktail’ should be reserved for the product which was traditionally known by this designation and which had long been established in international trade. The decision of the Committee was also based on the consideration that most of the canned fruit cocktail moving in international trade was the product described in the standard.
139. A substantial number of delegates, many of whom were from countries which had not been represented at sessions of the Commodity Committee stated that to reserve the designation ‘Fruit Cocktail’ for the product described in the standard would present great difficulties for them. Many countries were using the designation ‘fruit cocktail’ to cover a mixture of fruits which would not be the same as those listed in the standard, not to speak of the question of proportion of fruits in the product. Several delegates stated that the list of fruits in a standard for such a product should not be restrictive. A number of delegates stated that it should be possible to use the designation ‘fruit cocktail’ in connection with tropical fruits. It was pointed out that the Commodity Committee would be elaborating standards for tropical fruit salad and other mixtures of fruits, under its programme of future work, but some delegates stated, in this connection, that there was a considerable difference between the designations ‘fruit cocktail’ and ‘fruit salad’. It was also noted that the English word ‘cocktail’ was used in descriptions of fruits in other languages, for example, Spanish and French. Other terms were also commonly used, such as the Italian word ‘Macedonia’.
140. The suggestion was made that it might be possible for the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables to elaborate a general standard for mixed fruits with appropriate individual standards to cover different mixtures of fruits. The Commission concluded by noting that there was a problem as to mixtures of fruits and as to nomenclature. The Commission agreed that the Secretariat should request information from Member Governments as to their practices in relation to the production of canned mixed fruits. The information should show what mixtures of fruits are canned and what designations the various mixtures are given. The information should also include figures on home consumption, imports and exports of the various mixtures. This information should be made available for consideration by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables, and the Commodity Committee should also examine the feasibility of elaborating a General Standard for mixtures of Canned Fruits. It was agreed that the Commodity Committee should consult the Codex Committee on Food Labelling as it thought fit. The Commission noted and agreed with the recommendation of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling that the manner of declaring l-ascorbic acid should be “l-ascorbic acid as an antioxidant” instead of “l-ascorbic acid added to preserve colour”.
Status of the Draft Standard for Canned Fruit Cocktail
141. The Commission agreed not to adopt the Draft Standard for Canned Fruit Cocktail at Step 8 of the Procedure, but to return it to the Committee for reconsideration at Step 7.
142. In introducing the Draft Standard for Canned Mandarin Oranges, the Rapporteur drew the attention of the Commission to a number of amendments proposed to the Standard by the delegate of Japan. The proposed amendments related mainly to sizing but also affected other sections of the draft standard. Since these amendments were of a substantive nature, and since Japan attached considerable importance to them, the Rapporteur, with the concurrence of the delegate of Japan, proposed that the Draft Standard for Canned Mandarin Oranges be returned to the Committee for reconsideration at Step 7. The Rapporteur stated that Japan would need to submit promptly its specific proposal, with supporting data, to the Chairman of the Committee, in order for this standard to be reconsidered at the 1973 meeting of the Committee.
Status of the Draft Standard for Canned Mandarin Oranges
143. The Commission agreed to return the Draft Standard for Canned Mandarin Oranges to Step 7 of the Procedure for reconsideration by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables, more especially as regards the proposed amendments suggested by the delegate of Japan.
144. In introducing the Draft Standard for Canned Pears, the Rapporteur drew attention to the amendments recommended by the Ninth Session of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables concerning the Section on Packing Media and the Sub-section on the Name of the Product in the Labelling Section of the Standard. These recommendations were in line with the decisions which had been taken by the Commodity Committee in relation to the other standards for canned fruits which it had considered at its last session.
145. Several delegates, including the delegates of the Federal Republic of Germany, Portugal, Switzerland and Yugoslavia, reserved their positions on the use of artificial colours in connections with canned pears. The delegate of India thought that there should be the same maximum limit for colours in all the standards for canned fruits and vegetables. It was pointed out, however, that the use of colours in canned pears was to give the pears quite a different colouring to the natural product and that the use of colours was confined to speciality packs. It was agreed that this should be made clear in the standard. The delegate of Ghana was one of the delegates who had reservations about the use of colours in this commodity and thought that the Commodity Committee should examine the extent of the trade in these specialty packs.
146. The Commission agreed that, in future, the restricted use of a food additive, such as in the present case, should be made quite clear in the standard. The Commission stressed the need for the fullest consideration to be given to the technological need for the use of food additives.
Adoption of the Draft Standard for Canned Pears at Step 8
147. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard for Canned Pears at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards.
148. The Commission noted the recommendations of the Ninth Session of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables in regard to this Standard and agreed to adopt the amendments proposed to the Section on Packing Media and the consequential amendments to the labelling section of the standard.
149. As in the case of other standards for canned fruit considered by the Committee at its Ninth Session, the Commission noted that the time schedule of meetings did not enable the proposed amendments to the labelling provisions to be submitted to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling for endorsement. On the recommendation of the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, the Commission agreed to adopt the proposed changes in the labelling section of the standard.
Adoption of the amended version of the Standard for Canned Strawberries at Step 8
150. The Commission adopted the amended version of the Standard for Canned Strawberries at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards.
151. Whilst the Commission agreed that these two draft standards should be advanced to Step 6 of the Procedure, the delegates of Spain and the Federal Republic of Germany stated that careful consideration should be given by the Committee to the section on food additives, and that only those which were technologically indispensable should be permitted in the standards. The delegate of Norway reiterated his view that it was unnecessary to set minimum levels for soluble solids in these standards.
152. The Commission considered the proposed amendments to the above three Step 9 standards, which had been proposed by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables at its Ninth Session and which were set out in Appendices X, XI and XII to document ALINORM 72/20A. The Commission noted the recommendation of the Commodity Committee that, in the case of the proposed amendments to the standards for canned peaches and canned pineapple, Steps 6, 7 and 8 be omitted. The Commission noted that the proposed maximum limit of 700 mg/kg for l-ascorbic acid in the Step 9 Standard for Canned Peaches had not as yet been before the Codex Committee on Food Additives for endorsement. A number of delegates thought that the level of l-ascorbic acid proposed to be permitted in this product was somewhat high. The Commission, failing to agree without dissent that Steps 6, 7 and 8 be omitted, decided that the proposed amendment to the Step 9 Standard for Canned Peaches be advanced to Step 6 of the Procedure.
153. The Commission considered the proposed amendment of the Commodity Committee to the Step 9 Standard for Canned Pineapple and agreed, there being no dissent, that the amendment should be adopted at Step 8.
154. The Commission considered the proposed amendment of the Commodity Committee to the Step 9 Standard for Canned Tomatoes and, noting that the Committee had not expressed a wish that Steps 6, 7 and 8 be omitted, agreed to advance the proposed amendment to Step 6 of the Procedure.
155. The Commission noted the contents of paragraph 119 of ALINORM 72/20A concerning proposed amendments to the above-mentioned Step 9 Standard. The Commission also noted that these amendments had not yet been considered by the Commodity Committee and that it was not the intention that the Commission should take any decision on them at this session within the framework of the Procedure for the Amendment of Recommended Codex Standards. The position was, therefore, that it was the intention of the Commodity Committee to seek comments on these proposed amendments to enable the Committee to consider them more meaningfully at its next session. The proposed amendments to the above standard were therefore not at any step of the amendment procedure at this time.
156. 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.
157. The Commission noted that a Joint Codex/IOOC Meeting on the Standardization of Table Olives had taken place in Madrid from 13–16 December 1971, and that the Joint Meeting had submitted to the Commission a Proposed Draft Standard for Table Olives for consideration at Step 5. The attention of the Commission was drawn to paragraphs 45, 46 and 47 of the Report of the Meeting, document ALINORM 72/21, as well as to the views of the Executive Committee as contained in paragraphs 36–40 of ALINORM 72/3.
158. At the Joint Meeting it had not been found possible to reach agreement on a minimum quality level for table olives which would be acceptable to all countries. For this reason, the Joint Meeting had agreed that it was necessary to incorporate in the standard quality classes superior to the minimum laid down in the standard. The intention was that those countries which did not regard the Codex quality level as being acceptable could still accept the standard in respect of the higher quality levels. The Executive Committee had agreed, taking into account the meaning of acceptance as laid down in the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius, that it was essential to uphold the principle that Codex standards contained only one level of quality. At the same time, the Executive Committee was anxious to find a solution to the problem which had been posed by the Joint Meeting. The Executive Committee agreed on the following formula. The Codex standard should include a notation which would, in substance, state (i) that the quality requirements of the Codex standard corresponded to the Market Class in the IOOC Standard and (ii) that the two higher quality classes in the IOOC standard, which would be set out in an annex to the Codex standard, were there for information purposes but did not form part of the standard.
159. The delegates of Italy and Spain agreed with the conclusions of the Executive Committee, as set out in the Report of its Eighteenth Session. The delegate of France stated that the international trade in table olives was, in fact, based on three quality classes and added that he would have preferred to have had the three classes fully incorporated into the standard as distinct from providing for the two superior grades in the form of annexes in the way suggested by the Executive Committee.
160. In response to a question from the floor, the FAO Legal Adviser explained that there was no specific provision in the General Principles which would preclude the Commission from adopting a standard specifying more than a single quality class and from leaving it to governments, when accepting the recommended standard, to declare the class for which they had opted. There was a provision in the Format according to which quality factors essential for the definition or composition of the product “do not at this stage include grades or quality classes”. It would seem from the Introduction to the Format that its provisions were mainly intended as a guide to Codex Commodity Committees.
161. The FAO Legal Adviser added that in view of the formulation in the Format, which includes the terms “at this stage”, it would appear that paragraph 3 of the General Principles providing that standards should be drawn up in accordance with the Format, was not intended to bind the Commission to the specification in a standard of a single quality class in all cases. Accordingly, the Commission could, if it considered this necessary or appropriate, introduce two or more quality classes in the actual text of the standard. However, as noted in the preceding paragraph, a country, in accepting a particular standard, would be required to accept one of the quality classes so specified.
Status of the Draft Standard for Table Olives
162. The Commission agreed that the Draft Standard for Table Olives should be advanced to Step 6 of the Procedure for consideration, in the light of government comments, at a further joint CODEX/IOOC meeting to be held in 1973. The representative of the IOOC expressed the satisfaction of the IOOC at the close cooperation existing between the IOOC and the Codex Alimentarius Commission in the elaboration of the international standard for table olives.
163. The Commission considered the above standard which was contained in Appendix III of ALINORM 72/26. The Chairman of the Committee acted as Rapporteur. The Commission noted that there were no food additives provisions as yet in the draft standard. However, the Commission was informed that a list of food additive provisions for this product had been discussed at the Seventh Session of the Committee (Cologne, October 1972), the Report of which was not yet available to the Commission. This list would have to be examined by the Ninth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives in 1973, with a view to endorsement. The Commission also took note of the fact that the provisions on contaminants, hygiene and labelling had to be re-examined by the appropriate Codex General Subject Committees.
164. The Commission noted that a number of amendments to the draft standard had been proposed at Step 8 and that the FAO/WHO/UNICEF Protein Advisory Group (PAG) would examine this standard at its meeting on Feeding the Pre-school Child, to be held in Geneva in December 1972. The PAG, which is to advise FAO and WHO as regards nutritional aspects of foods, especially of food intended to be fed to infants and children, would review the standard, with particular reference to protein quality and trace elements in infant formulae not based on milk. Furthermore, a meeting on requirements of trace elements would be convened by WHO in 1973, the report of which might affect the compositional criteria of the standard.
Status of the Draft Standard for Infant Formula
165. In view of these circumstances, the Commission decided not to adopt the Draft Standard for Infant Formula at Step 8, but to refer it back to the Committee at Step 7 of the Procedure.
166. The Commission considered the Proposed Draft Standard for Canned Baby Foods contained in Appendix IV of ALINORM 72/26 at Step 5. The delegates of India and Ghana pointed out that careful attention should be given to the possible alteration of the product in hot climates and that, therefore, there should be provisions on maximum moisture content, date of processing and date beyond which the product should not be consumed. The observer of the Libyan Arab Republic stated that he considered that the draft standard for Canned Baby Foods should include maximum and minimum levels of nutrients, particularly protein, minerals and vitamins, since these foods were intended to be fed to pre-school children in the dangerous period of weaning. The observer of the Libyan Arab Republic thought, therefore, that the draft standard should be considered carefully from the nutritional point of view, and added that it might be worthwhile to have it examined by the FAO/WHO/UNICEF Protein Advisory Group (PAG).
Status of the Draft Standard for Canned Baby Foods
167. The Commission decided to advance this Proposed Draft Standard to Step 6 of the Procedure.
168. 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. The Commission took note of the statement by the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany that the next session of the Committee would be held early in 1974.
169. The Commission had before it the Report of the Sixth Session of the above Committee (ALINORM 72/16). The delegate of Denmark, which hosts the Committee, acted as Rapporteur.
170. The Commission noted that many of the comments and reservations made regarding the Draft Standard for Canned Corned Beef (ALINORM 72/16, Appendix IV) dealt with the question of the name of the product, that is to say, whether the scope section should be limited to the traditional South American product known as “canned corned beef” or whether it should also cover other products labelled as corned beef in conjunction with a geographical or other designation, but which differed in composition from the South American type product.
171. On the basis of the information received, the Commodity Committee had, at its Sixth Session, decided that the standard should be limited to the traditional product and had requested the FAO Legal Office to examine the consequences of possible acceptance of the standard in relation to the trade in similar products not covered by the standard, but having the term “corned beef” as part of their designation.
172. In the light of the reply to this question given by the FAO Legal Office, a number of delegates expressed the view that the draft standard should encompass all products commonly known as corned beef in one form or another. In this connection, the Commission discussed at some length one of the conclusions reached in the answer of the FAO Legal Office with regard to the use of the product descriptive names, namely that the addition of descriptive designations as “with cereals” or “with broth” to corned beef would seem both desirable and legally admissible, provided that the corned beef component of the product is in conformity with the mandatory compositional provisions of the standard.
173. A number of delegates pointed out that the European and other non traditional types of corned beef did not and could not comply with this requirement and they were therefore of the opinion that the standard might result in trade restrictions for these products.
174. Other delegates pointed out that the product of main importance in international trade was the South American type of corned beef and that consequently it was appropriate that the Codex Standard should confine itself to this product.
175. The Commission agreed that the designation “Corned Beef” without qualifying descriptions should apply exclusively to the traditional South American type of product.
176. The Commission briefly reviewed the provisions of the standard and the written government comments given to these and noted in particular the following:
177. The Commission further noted that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene had endorsed the hygiene section of the standard as it stood and that the labelling section had been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling with two amendments. In connection with one of the amendments the delegate of New Zealand raised the question whether it was not more appropriate to retain the form of wording proposed by the Commodity Committee, which the Labelling Committee itself considered to be clear rather than the customary extract from the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. It was agreed that this was a matter of a general nature affecting all Commodity standards and that it should be discussed under another agenda item (see paragraph 313 of this Report).
Status of the Draft Standard for Canned Corned Beef
178. The delegate of the Argentina stated that it would be desirable to hold the standard for Canned Corned Beef at Step 8 of the Procedure, solely in order that the studies on additives, time and temperature of incubation which are being carried out by ISO and the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications can be completed. However, in view of the discussions concerning the name of the product in connection with the scope of the standard and also concerning the amendments proposed to the provisions of the standard, the Commission decided to return the draft standard to Step 7 of the Procedure.
179. The Commission recognized that the Processed Meat Products Committee had already considered the question of the desirability of broadening the standard. The Commission decided, however, that the Commodity Committee should once more review the entire subject matter. In doing this the Committee should consider the reply given by the FAO Legal Office to the question which had been raised by the Committee, and should also take into account the views of the countries which produced corned beef which was not the traditional South-American type.
180. In connection with the Report the delegate of Canada expressed concern that the work on Canned Hams and other important canned processed meat products of significance in world-wide trade had become merged with work on a far too general and broad a basis on cooked cured ham, etc. In the opinion of the delegate of Canada, the Committee should take the final steps in the elaboration of the standards for these already well-defined traditionally packaged and treated products (canned, fully preserved) as in the case of Canned Corned Beef, and later on go on to develop, if necessary, standards for other related products now entering trade (e.g. semi-preserved products in plastic bags). The Commission, however, noted the remarks of the Chairman of the Committee drawing attention to some questions which had been raised in the Committee concerning the consequence of the Acceptance Procedure in relation to the name of the product and the scope of the standards.
181. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Processed Meat Products should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Denmark.
182. The Commission had before it the Report of the Sixth Session of the above Committee (ALINORM 72/17). The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany, which hosts the Committee, acted as Rapporteur.
183. The Rapporteur pointed out that the document under the discussion should be considered in conjunction with the proposed Draft Descriptions of Cutting Methods of Commercial Units of Carcasses moving in International Trade (Pistol Cuts) (ALINORM 72/17, Appendix V), as in the opinion of the majority of the delegates attending the last session of the Committee, this document (Appendix V) should be merged with the above document (Appendix IV). The Commission decided that, with regard to the main document (Appendix IV), all the written comments received at Step 8 could be accepted. The Commission adopted Appendix IV at Step 8, which would be edited to include the Step 8 comments mentioned above. The Commission also decided that Appendix IV, in its edited form, should not be advanced to Step 9 until the text on Pistol Cuts (Appendix V) had also been adopted at Step 8.
184. The Commission considered the proposal by the Codex Committee on Meat to omit Steps 6, 7 and 8 of the Procedure so that the document (Appendix V) could be merged with the Descriptions of Cutting Methods of Carcasses, Halves and Quarters (Appendix IV). The Commission was of the opinion that, whereas the merging as such seemed not inappropriate, Appendix V needed further review by the Codex Committee on Meat. The Commission agreed to advance the document to Step 6 of the Procedure and to request the Codex Committee on Meat to elaborate the document in such a way that it could be merged with the main document (Appendix IV).
185. The Commission considered at Step 5 of the Procedure the above document, contained in Appendix II of ALINORM 72/17 and decided to advance the document to Step 6.
186. At its previous session, the Commission had decided that “work to be done in connection with boneless meat should be confined to hygiene matters” (ALINORM 71/31, paragraph 165) and that “the question of composition - content of fat, muscle, fibre, etc. - of the product was a matter normally covered by the commercial specifications or contracts between buyers and sellers”. At its Sixth Session, the Codex Committee on Meat had re-discussed the issue and had agreed, on the basis of a majority decision, to request the Commission to reconsider its decision, so that work on compositional criteria for boneless meat could be undertaken by the Codex Committee on Meat (ALINORM 72/17, paragraph 60).
187. Several delegates stated that the trade in boneless meat was, for the most part, confined to bulk packs intended for further processing and only to a very limited extent also included units intended for direct sale to the consumer. Other delegates, however, stated that significant quantities of boneless meat were for direct consumption. Some delegates considered that it would be necessary to consider the question of a standard for boneless meat in the light of the criteria for the establishment of work priorities, as contained in the Procedural Manual, which had not been fulfilled. It was further noted that the terms of reference of the Codex Committee on Processed Meat Products covered the elaboration of standards for consumer-packaged meat.
188. The Secretariat was requested, in collaboration with the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Meat, to prepare and send out a questionnaire pertaining to the trade in boneless meat. The purpose of the questionnaire would be to ascertain the extent of international trade in boneless meat (a) intended for direct consumption, and (b) intended for further processing. The information received would be collated by the Secretariat for consideration by the Commission at its Tenth Session.
189. 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.
190. The Commission had before it the reports of the Eighth and Ninth Sessions of the above Committee (ALINORM 72/13 and ALINORM 72/13A). The delegate of the U.S.A., which hosts the Committee, acted as Rapporteur.
191. The Commission considered the above Draft Code which was contained in Appendix II to ALINORM 72/13. It was agreed to make two minor amendments of a clarifying nature in sub-section III.B.5 “Protection of Tree Nuts from Contamination”:
The first sentence to read: “… to prevent the nuts from being contaminated by domestic animals, insects, mites (and other arthropods), vermin, birds …”.
The fourth sentence to read: “Where nuts are likely to have become infested by insects or other arthropods, they should be treated by fumigants or other suitable means before storage or processing.”
192. The delegate of Senegal stated that in his country and, more generally in the West African savannas, cashews (Anacardium occidentale) were not cultivated on plantations but mainly grew wild and that harvesting procedures were adapted to the situation. In this connection, the extent to which the Code would be of practical use in Senegal might be rather limited, especially as certain practices with regard to drying immature nuts were not covered. He stated that unripe cashew nuts contained toxic substances which disappear when the nuts are exposed to a lengthy sun-drying process. Often, however, these nuts were roasted to speed up the drying procedure and then the toxic substances could remain. He considered therefore that the Code should be held at Step 8. It was pointed out however that the Code dealt with hygiene and not technological practice.
Adoption of the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Tree Nuts at Step 8
193. The Commission adopted the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Tree Nuts at Step 8 of the Procedure as a Recommended Code.
194. The Commission considered the above draft Code which was contained in Appendix II to ALINORM 72/13A. The Rapporteur proposed and the Commission agreed that, in view of the substantive nature of a number of the written comments received, the Code should be returned to the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene for reconsideration at Step 7 of the Procedure. The Commission expressed its appreciation for the substantial and excellent work done by the Committee in the elaboration of the document.
195. The Commission considered the above Code contained in Appendix III to ALINORM 72/13 at Step 5 of the Procedure and decided to advance the Code to Step 6.
196. With regard to the question of the mode of publication of codes of hygienic practice, the Commission concurred with the decision of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene to the effect that it would specifically indicate whether a particular code warranted individual publication (see also ALINORM 72/13A, paragraph 6). This was in line with the views which had been expressed by the Executive Committee at its Eighteenth Session.
197. It was pointed out that, at the Eighth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives, that Committee had discussed a provision as endorsed, in many standards by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, relating to toxins originating from microorganisms, and had proposed a different form of wording, stating that substances of microbiological origin “which may represent a hazard to health” should be absent. The Commission agreed not to make any change in this regard in the Hygiene section of the standards before it, as it considered that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene should, in the first instance, consider this matter at its next session. The delegate of Norway proposed to add the words “of the consumer” to the proposed wording to bring it into line with the generally used terminology.
198. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the USA.
199. The Commission had before it the Report of the first session of the above Committee. The delegate of New Zealand, which hosts the Committee, acted as Rapporteur.
200. The Commission considered the above Code contained in Appendix II to ALINORM 72/15 at Step 5 of the Procedure and decided to advance the Code to Step 6.
201. 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.
202. The delegate of Poland stated that Poland had already indicated, at Step 5, its general opposition to the permitted level of metal contamination in concentrated juices being expressed on the reconstituted juice, and considered that this subject needed further study. The delegate of Belgium supported the delegate of Poland on this point. The delegate of Poland added that a number of analytical examinations of fruit juices carried out in Poland showed that metal contamination (lead, arsenic, copper, zinc, iron) was on a similar level in fruit juices and concentrated fruit juices.
203. The Commission had before it the above draft standard which was contained in Appendix II to ALINORM 72/14. The Chairman of the Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on the Standardization of Fruit Juices, Prof. W. Pilnik (Netherlands) informed the Commission of the reasons why the Joint Group of Experts had decided to elaborate two different standards for single strength grape juice; one for Viniferatype and one for Concord or Concord-type.
204. One of the main reasons had been the possible need for sugar additions to Concord grapes or Concord-type grapes which were mainly from the Vitis labrusca variety and were not normally found in Europe, whereas the addition of sugar to the Vitis vinifera variety or its hybrids was generally not permitted in Europe. The technical and qualitative differences between these two varieties and their hybrids had been considered sufficient to warrant the splitting of the draft standard for grape juice into two different grape juice standards, and accordingly, a suitable scope section had been added to each standard, clearly defining which juices would be covered by the respective standards.
205. The Joint Group of Experts had decided to advance the standard for the Vinifera and Vinifera-type to Step 8 of the Procedure and had considered that the standard for the Vitis labrusca type, after re-editing, might be, with the agreement of the Executive Committee, considered at Step 6 of the Procedure.
206. The Commission noted that the Executive Committee, at its Eighteenth Session (paragraphs 89 and 90 of ALINORM 72/3) had agreed that the draft standard for Concord and Concord-type grape juice should be considered as being at Step 6 of the Procedure.
207. The Commission was also informed that a slight editorial amendment should be made to the draft standard for Vinifera-type grape juice in the second sentence of the section on Description, namely, to include the phrase “corrected for acidity” and delete the latter half of the sentence, as both acidifying and de-acidifying agents were permitted in the standard. In addition, it was agreed that the editorial amendments, submitted by the United Kingdom in their written comments (ALINORM 72/31) should also be included in this standard as well as in the other fruit juice standards before the Commission at Step 8. The delegate of New Zealand stated that in New Zealand it was necessary to add sugar to Vinifera-type grape juice and inquired whether, since New Zealand had not been represented at the sessions of the Group of Experts, their comments in writing to this effect had been taken into account. The question was raised in the Commission as to whether it is the practice at meetings of subsidiary bodies to bring forward for consideration the written comments from countries which had been unable to send a delegation to the meeting. This procedure would be in conformity with the provisions of the Procedural Manual. It was emphasized that this practice is always adopted, and that such countries could be assured that consideration is given to their comments.
Status of the Draft Standard for Vinifera-Type Grape Juice
208. The delegate of the United States stated that, although he had no objection to the draft standard being adopted at Step 8, he would prefer that it should be held at Step 8 until such time as the draft standard for Concord and Concord-type grape juice was submitted at Step 8 of the Procedure, so that both standards could be considered at the same time by the Commission. The Commission agreed to hold the draft standard for Vinifera-type grape juice at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
209. The Commission had before it the above draft standard which was contained in Appendix IV, ALINORM 72/14. The Commission was informed of the main points which had been considered by the Joint Group of Experts in relation to the draft standard for Vinifera-type concentrated grape juice. These points were equally pertinent to the draft standards for concentrated apple juice and concentrated orange juice. The Joint Group of Experts had borne in mind that the concentrated juices for which they were elaborating standards were intended for direct consumption and taking this into account had based the provisions relating to “use of concentrate”, “minimum degree of concentration” and “amount of contaminants” on the single strength juices and had made adjustments accordingly.
Status of the Draft Standard for Vinifera-Type Concentrated Grape Juice
210. The Commission noted that the Joint Group of Experts had decided to split the concentrated grape juice standard into two different standards in the same way as had been done for the single strength juices and agreed therefore to hold the draft standard for Vinifera-type concentrated grape juice at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards.
211. The Commission had before it the above draft standard which was contained in Appendix VI to ALINORM 72/14.
Adoption of the Draft Standard for Concentrated Apple Juice at Step 8
212. The Commission noted that there were no substantive points on this standard and therefore decided to adopt the draft standard for concentrated apple juice at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards as a Recommended Standard.
213. The Commission had before it the above draft standard which was contained in Appendix VII to ALINORM 72/14. The Commission was informed that the Joint Group of Experts had, taking into account that the figure for minimum soluble solids content (exclusive of added sugars) for single strength orange juice was 10° Brix, allowed a minimum soluble solids content of 11° Brix for reconstituted orange juice, having agreed that the minimum oBrix for single strength juices should not necessarily be the basis for juices from concentrates (paragraph 84, ALINORM 72/14).
214. The delegate of Australia reminded the Commission of the decision it had taken at its last session regarding single strength orange juice in considering the difficulties encountered by Australian orange juice manufacturers in producing a product with a consistently high oBrix figure. However, taking into account the recommendation of the Joint Group of Experts for a higher oBrix for a reconstituted orange juice, it was agreed to accept the figure of 11° Brix.
Adoption of the Draft Standard for Concentrated Orange Juice at Step 8
215. The Commission adopted the draft standard for concentrated orange juice at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards as a Recommended Codex Standard.
216. The delegate of Senegal pointed out that in the standards for concentrated fruit juices at Step 8, it was stated that methods of analysis and sampling had still to be elaborated. The Commission noted that a great number of methods of analysis for fruit juices had already been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling, but that the difficult problem of selecting appropriate methods of analysis had been left to a working group in which the International Federation of Fruit Juice Producers had been associated with the AOAC and the International Wine Office. The Commission noted, however, that specific methods regarding the analysis of concentrates had not been proposed yet by the Joint ECE/Codex Group of Experts and recommended that proposals for appropriate methods should follow the procedure and be proposed for endorsement by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling at a future session.
