Discussion Paper on the Development of a Database on Rejections of Foods (Agenda Item 9)[17]

53. The Committee recalled that this matter had been discussed briefly at the Committee’s 5th Session (1997) at which time the Committee suggested that a paper might be prepared by Consumers International.[18] The representative of Consumers International highlighted the potential benefits of instituting such a database; in particular, that it could provide a means of identifying problems in international trade; allow the monitoring of the quality and safety of foods moving in trade and ensure transparency in the operation of import/export control systems. Such a database could also have potential as the basis of an early warning system for problems related to foods in trade.

54. The representative of WHO, noting that the paper made specific reference to the potential role of that Organization on maintaining such a database, stated that because a large number of detentions of food were not related exclusively to food safety matters, the maintenance of data on these other matters might fall outside the Organization’s mandate. He suggested that rather than a central database, a distributed network of national databases accessible via the Internet might be an suitable alternative. In this regard, it was proposed that the establishment of a directory or inventory of national databases could be developed. It was also proposed that the establishment of guidelines or a uniform format for the presentation of data might usefully form part of the future work of the Committee.

55. Several delegations and observers made reference to the databases available nationally or regionally. The representative of the European Union stated that information on food safety within the EU was available publicly through the Internet.

56. The Committee noted a number of problems in establishing a global database of rejections, including:

• the lack of uniform criteria for causes of rejection;
• rejections by an importing country might be disputed or may not be made on scientific grounds, and that the inclusion of such data in a database would be prejudicial;
• that the true causes of rejection might not be the fault of the exporter or the exporting country, but the conditions of transport or conditions of storage on arrival at the destination;
• the possibility that such data, without corresponding data on the domestic food situation, could give a false impression as the quality and safety of foods in trade;
• that the reasons for formal rejection were often minor and correctable;
• possible misuse of the data;
• the cost of establishing and maintaining such a database and ensuring that it would be kept up-to-date;
• that the establishment of such a database lay outside the mandate of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

57. The representative of FAO noted that a survey had been carried out some years ago, with the assistance of Finland, into trade problems, especially rejections, in relation to contaminants in foods. He suggested that it might prove useful to repeat this survey under the new conditions of trading brought about by the WTO Agreements should resources become available.

58. The Committee expressed its continuing support, in principle, for the open provision of food control data as an essential component of ensuring consumer confidence in the food supply. It also noted that improvements in the development and availability of national databases would certainly occur in the future. The Committee agreed that the issue would be a matter of continuing interest. However, in view of the problems inherent in this exercise, practical difficulties and resource implications, the Committee agreed not to pursue this matter further at this time.