ALINORM 03/3A  |
| ALINORM 03/3A |
Twenty-sixth Session, 30 June - 7 July 2003 |
REPORT OF THE FIFTIETH SESSION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (Agenda Item 1)
FINANCIAL AND BUDGETARY MATTERS (Agenda Item 3)
PREPARATION OF THE MEDIUM TERM PLAN FOR 2003-2007 (Agenda Item 5)
Objective 1: Promoting Sound Regulatory Framework
Activity 4 - Terms of Reference of "General Subject" Committees
Activity 18 - Review of the Criteria
Activity 21 - General Standard for Labelling
Activity 25 - Foods derived from biotechnology
Objective 2 - Promoting Widest and Consistent Application of Scientific Principles and Risk Analysis
Activity 2 - Review Codex Standards to provide risk management options to achieve national ALOPs
Activity 6 - Develop guidelines for pre-harvest and posts-harvest measures
Objective 5 - Promoting Maximum Membership and Participation
Objective 6 - Promoting Maximum Application of Codex Standards
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S PROGRAMME OF WORK (Agenda Item 6)
(a) Implementation of decisions taken by the 24th Session of the Commission
(b) Consideration of new work proposals at Step 1 of the Procedure
Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Validation of Food Hygiene Control Measures
Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Reduction of Aflatoxins in Tree Nuts
Proposals for the Discontinuation of Work
(c) Consideration of Proposed Draft Standards and Related Texts at Step 5
DRAFT PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR THE 25TH SESSION OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION (Agenda Item 7)
OTHER BUSINESS (Agenda Item 8)
Part III: CODEX Standards and Related Texts
PART IV: POLICY AND GENERAL MATTERS
PART V: Programme and Budgetary Matters
1. The Executive Committee of the Codex Alimentarius Commission held its Fiftieth Session at FAO Headquarters, Rome, from 26 to 28 June 2002 under the chairmanship of the Chairperson of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Mr. Thomas Billy (U.S.A.). The meeting was attended by the three Vice-Chairpersons of the Commission and Members of the Executive Committee elected on a regional basis from Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, North America, and the Southwest Pacific. The Codex Regional Coordinators for Asia, Africa, Europe, Near East, and North America and the Southwest Pacific attended as observers. A complete list of participants is given in Appendix I to this report.
2. At the invitation of the Executive Committee, the Leader of the Evaluation Team, Professor Bruce Traill (U.K.), and a representative of the Independent Expert Panel, Professor Ken Buckle (Australia), participated in the discussions under Item 2 of the Agenda.
3. The Session was opened by Mr Hartwig de Haen, Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Department of FAO. Mr de Haen noted that the Heads of State and Government at the recently held World Food Summit: five years later had reaffirmed the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, and also the important role of Codex Alimentarius to provide effective, science-based, internationally-accepted standards of food safety. He also noted that the impetus given to food safety standards, in part by the entry into force of the SPS Agreement and in part by the food scares that have occurred in various parts of the world, was now likely to be supplemented by a stronger need for standards of composition and trade description as a result of the recent findings under the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement)1. Mr de Haen also stressed the commitment of the parent Organizations to capacity-building for developing countries, in particular in partnership with OIE, the World Bank and the WTO.
4. Mr de Haen pointed out the usefulness of organizing food safety meetings in all regions of the world and that both FAO and WHO working in close cooperation were pursuing programmes of capacity-building and technical assistance covering a farm to table systems-management approach to food quality and safety based on the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Mr de Haen drew the attention of the Executive Committee to the comprehensive evaluation being undertaken jointly by FAO and WHO of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other FAO and WHO work related to food standards. He stressed that an independent and comprehensive evaluation was very important to allow the parent organization plan their future resource priorities and to provide good governance for the Commission's work.
5. Dr David Nabarro, Executive Director, Sustainable Development and Healthy Environments, World Health Organization, drew the attention of the Executive Committee to the fact that in view of significance of food safety and in order to respond to the needs of member governments, WHO saw opportunities to increase its effective involvement in improving present systems and in the work of Codex. Dr Nabarro emphasized the importance of improving the developing countries’ participation in this work especially through a FAO/WHO Trust Fund and that the Director-General of WHO was committed to pursuing these issues.
6. The Executive Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda2 as the Agenda for its Session.
7. The representative of the Evaluation Service of FAO introduced the agenda item on behalf of the evaluation units of both FAO and WHO. He noted that the evaluation was unique in many respects, not the least of which being that it was a joint evaluation of a joint programme. Moreover, the programmes in question were of major importance to all countries, dealt with issues that were very much in the public eye, and at the most fundamental level dealt with questions of human health and the opportunities for economic development to tackle poverty a root cause of malnutrition and ill-health . The representative pointed out that the evaluation had been called for first and foremost by the governing bodies of FAO and WHO, but that it was also designed to serve the needs of the Commission and its members.
8. The principles upon which FAO and WHO were undertaking the evaluation were those with which the Organisations were required by their governing bodies to carry out evaluations of their programmes, in particular a review of the conformity with organisational priorities, usefulness and cost-effectiveness, independence of the evaluation process, and comprehensiveness. In common with other evaluations, the Evaluation was expected to be forward-looking and provide recommendations that could be realistically implemented by the Organizations.
9. In addition to the review announced at the 49th Session of the Executive Committee of the management, structures and procedures of Codex itself, FAO and WHO would evaluate the capacity-building needs of Member countries to protect the health of their people, to facilitate their exports by meeting the requirements of importing countries, and to be able to participate in the Codex process. They would also examine the effectiveness of the expert bodies which provide much of the scientific support to Codex decision-making, and the relationship with other standardizing bodies such as the OIE, IPPC and ISO.
10. The representative noted the concerns expressed by member countries in FAO's Programme Committee and elsewhere concerning the transparency of the evaluation procedure, including the establishment of the Terms of Reference, and the adequacy of regional representation in the process, in particular the Independent Expert Panel. He indicated that regional balance had been strengthened and every effort was being made to pursue the evaluation with a transparent process.
11. Prof. Bruce Traill, Leader of the Evaluation Team, provided the Executive Committee with a status report of the evaluation to date, and outlined the approaches being taken by the Evaluation Team to gather information from all sources in order to arrive at a comprehensive and useful evaluation. Prof. Ken Buckle, Acting Chairman of the Independent Expert Panel, provided a report on the Panel's activities and expectations. They described the linkages between the work of the Team and the Independent Panel to provide a forward-looking, evidence-based report to the parent Organizations.
12. The Executive Committee welcomed the evaluation and the assurance that it would be addressing specific needs for strengthening of Codex. Several Members of the Executive Committee raised concerns about the Evaluation process as it had proceeded to date. All Members of the Executive Committee raised issues that would contribute to the progress of the Evaluation and its potential outcome. In general, the Executive Committee welcomed the responses made by the parent Organizations to the problem of ensuring adequate regional representation in the Independent Expert Panel. The Executive Committee was of the opinion that the process used for determining the terms of reference of the evaluation had not been as transparent as it could have been.
13. All of the Members of the Executive Committee that spoke expressed the view that the main core of Codex work, the science-based Codex standards, guidelines and recommendations for food safety should be maintained. Many Members expressed concern that the major aims of the Evaluation should not be sidelined by the consideration of other issues, including cultural and ethical issues; however, one Observer was of the opinion that cultural and ethical issues should not be overlooked.
14. Some Members stated that Codex should continue to work within its current mandate and that the Evaluation should concentrate on management issues including establishment of priorities, increasing the participation and influence of developing countries in the decision-making process, providing adequate resources for the expert scientific bodies and the Codex Secretariat itself, and the increased participation of WHO in the work of Codex. It was also noted that the linkages with the WTO/SPS Agreement required the strengthening of scientific risk analysis within the guidelines set out in the Codex Strategic Framework.
15. It was pointed out by one Member, that Codex needed to respond to two parallel mandates; the protection of consumers' health and the assurance of fair practices in the food trade. In this regard, it was pointed out that this second mandate needed to be based on adequate and appropriate criteria if Codex standards were to maintain their credibility in the international market-place; a balance between these two aspects of the Codex mandate needed to be established.
16. The Executive Committee noted that the time-frame for the Evaluation was extremely short given the scope of the Evaluation, and in particular the need for adequate time for Members to review and analyse the Evaluation Report prior to its consideration by the Governing Bodies of the Organizations. There was also a general feeling that the outcome of the evaluation should be discussed within the framework of Codex, overall and at a regional level. It was foreseen that the Evaluation Report would be available at the end of November 2002. It was proposed that in addition to consideration of the Evaluation report by the Executive Committee at a special session (as was foreseen in the Terms of Reference), it would be preferable to have a plenary meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to allow the Member countries to express their views on the outcome of the evaluation before the recommendations go to the governing bodies. This would help to increase the level of participation and transparency in the consultation process. It would allow for equal treatment of the Commission's views by the Governing bodies of the two parent Organizations and would facilitate the Commission taking account of the evaluation in its medium-term planning. The Executive Committee noted however the financial implications that holding an additional session of the Commission would have for remote developing countries.
17. The Representative of WHO noted that such a proposal would be possible within the framework of the WHO's budgeting cycle for the biennium 2004-2005. For the World Health Assembly in May 2003 to take a definitive decision, the Commission's recommendations would have to be known by the end of February 2003; while initial budgetary provisions would still need to be considered by the WHO Executive Board's meeting in January 2003. It was noted that FAO's main cycle of programme and budgetary meetings for 2004-2005 would commence in May 2003 and that they also had a March deadline on documentation.
18. The Executive Committee welcomed the opportunity for additional time to consider the Evaluation. On this basis, it requested the Directors-General to convene a special 3-day session of the Commission in mid-February 2003 for the purpose of considering the Evaluation report; the session to be preceded by a meeting of the Executive Committee as provided for in Rule III.4 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. It also requested the Secretariat to re-arrange the time-table of Codex meetings to ensure that all Regional Coordinating Committee meetings will have met prior to this special session of the Commission. Furthermore, the Executive Committee agreed that the Evaluation should be included on the Provisional Agendas of all Regional Coordinating Committees, although it noted that in some cases it would only be possible to provide a report on the progress of the evaluation rather than a review of its recommendations. In these cases, the Executive Committee recommended that the Regional Coordinators and the Members elected on a regional basis should consult with the Member countries in their respective regions immediately after the issuance of the Evaluation report with a view to ensuring a fully informed debate at the special Commission session.
19. The Executive Committee expressed its appreciation to Professors Traill and Buckle for their valuable contribution to the present debate and to the evaluation units of FAO and WHO for the information provided.
20. In accordance with Rule XI.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat presented an estimate of expenditures based on the proposed programme of work of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, together with information concerning expenditures for the previous financial period. The estimate of expenditures was based on provisions for the operating expenses of the Commission and the subsidiary bodies of the Commission established under Rule IX.1(a) and IX.1(b)(ii) and for the expenses relating to staff assigned to the Programme. Other expenditures included the provision of interpretation and translation services in Arabic and Chinese for the Commission, Executive Committee and Coordinating Committees where applicable. The report provided information on expenditures in the previous budget period (2000-2001), and the budget for the current period (2002/03).
21. The Executive Committee noted that beginning with the biennium 2002-2003, the budgetary and accounting arrangements for the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme had changed substantially. The current budget for 2002/03 related exclusively to the work programme of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies and therefore, the maintenance of separate budgets for joint FAO/WHO activities and FAO only activities was discontinued. The Codex budget no longer included support to Codex Contact Points or for the convening of ad hoc expert consultations that might be requested by the Commission. These resources had been transferred to other budget entities in the FAO Regular Programme.
22. It was noted that the combination of the budgets and its management under the FAO Regular Programme provided greater transparency in relation to the contributions of the parent Organizations to the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme and eliminated the need to keep separate accounts. In addition, the new budgetary arrangements would allow more detailed and improved reporting of expenditures by output. The Executive Committee was also provided with information on expenses to be funded by FAO and WHO in 2002 related to the evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO work on food standards.
23. The Executive Committee noted that, taken as a whole, there had been a net increase in the budgets for Codex and Codex-related programmes in the biennium 2002/2003.
24. The Executive Committee supported the new budgeting procedures, and welcomed efforts of the Secretariat in facilitating its presentation in a transparent and understandable manner. It expressed the hope that there would be continued improvement along these lines. It was noted that the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme was fully staffed at present and that notwithstanding additional unforeseen budgetary expenses, the current budget provided adequate funding for the Programme. The Executive Committee noted that notwithstanding the current priority given to the translation of Codex standards and related texts into Arabic and Chinese, it expressed the hope that additional resources would be made available so that translation might also be expanded to the working documentation of subsidiary bodies of the Commission so that technical input could be provided in these languages. The Executive Committee highlighted the importance of planning for possible expenditures related to the implementation of recommendations arising from the Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and Other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards.
25. The 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, in reaction to the Chairperson’s recommendation to establish an FAO/WHO Trust Fund to support developing country participation in Codex Commission and subsidiary body meetings, agreed in principle that FAO and WHO should establish clear rules and procedures for the establishment and functioning of a trust fund for consideration in the first instance by the Executive Committee in 2002 and the 25th Session of the Commission in 2003 to ensure its complete transparency and avoidance of bias and influence, to report on its implementation and to indicate envisioned sources of funding. Such examination should include considerations of the links between the proposed trust fund and the “Food and Agricultural Safety Facility” announced by FAO and supported by WHO.6 The document presented for consideration by the Executive Committee was a "concept paper" outlining the proposed trust fund.
26. Dr. David Nabarro of the WHO noted that the purpose of the proposed WHO Project and Fund for Enhanced Participation in Codex was to expand the number of food experts, regulators and other specialists in government service from developing (and especially least developed) countries and countries with economies in transition who are able to participate in all aspects of the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. It was noted that the Project and associated funding would receive guidance from a WHO/FAO Consultative Group and be implemented by WHO through its Food Safety Programme and that the fundraising would take place in accordance with the WHO Guidelines on Interaction with Commercial Entities to Achieve Health Outcomes and the WHO Committee on Private Sector Cooperation would be consulted wherever appropriate. Fund raising would also need to be conducted in accordance with the “Principles and Guidelines regarding cooperation between FAO and the private sector”. Although the project would be a joint activity, the management of funds would be conducted by WHO in accordance with WHO's financial regulations.
27. It was further explained that the funds would be held in trust by WHO for a period of 12 years and that such funding would be sought from a variety of sources including governments, private foundations and trusts and where appropriate, private corporations and individuals. It was noted that a 12 year project would cost USD $35 – $40 million, and that proposed matching of funds would potentially change that figure and allow the inclusion of additional beneficiaries from the approximately 120 member countries that might be eligible. The Executive Committee noted that Section IV of the Concept Paper further defined and developed underlying principles related to transparency and communication, conflict of interest, incentives for effective participation, equity and eligibility. The Executive Committee was informed that Option 3 of the paper would be the easiest to implement as WHO would be fully responsible for the management and administration of the funding through its well-established and transparent trust fund mechanism, the Voluntary Fund for Health Promotion.
28. The Executive Committee noted that the concept paper envisioned pilot funding for activities in addition to participation in Codex meetings, such as a pilot program more extensive and substantive work of developing food safety and quality capacity within countries and other capacity building activities on an interagency basis. One Member noted that the fund could be instrumental in effectively linking all stakeholders at the national level to the Codex process through the participation of appropriate individuals at Codex meetings. In this regard, it was suggested that the current activities of FAO, WHO and other international bodies needed to be taken into account when considering the scope of such trust fund activities. The Executive Committee also supported in principle the concept that it was the responsibility of countries to select the applicant concerned, which included the written endorsement of the government and the subsequent application review in the relevant regional office of the WHO and/or FAO. The importance of designating national governments in the selection and the formation of delegations to Codex meetings was stressed, with the understanding that guidance from the parent organizations could be provided in all areas related to the selection of applicants. A concern was expressed on the proposed selection process that the government should have the national prerogative to identify the beneficiaries to the project that would be commensurate with the need and commitment of the government to provide matching funds. On the other hand, one Member noted that the selection process should not be made unduly cumbersome or bureaucratic.
29. The Executive Committee stressed that sustainability of impact of the Trust Fund on Codex capacities was dependent on the alignment with overarching strategic priorities, including those of the Commission itself. It was recommended that the operation of the Trust Fund should be reported regularly to the Commission and that adjustments to the Trust Fund might need to be made from time to time.
30. The Executive Committee noted that in addition to those funding activities related to food safety, other aspects related to funding food quality activities in general needed to be included as both consumer protection and the facilitation of trade in foods were within the mandate of the Commission. Although it was noted that the administration of the fund would be handled by WHO, the importance of including FAO in the decision and management process was stressed. It was requested to foresee the role of the Members of the Commission ,as well as experts from Codex, in the consultative and advisory process. The importance of strictly controlling the financing was highlighted, especially if private funds were to be used. It was also noted that funding should facilitate the participation of countries in the development of standards, as well as training and workshops related to issues concerning food quality and the implications of the WTO Agreements with the understanding that efforts should facilitate coordination and avoid duplication with other international initiatives. Where appropriate, the participation of various stakeholders in these activities could be supported. In regard to the provision of matching funds by applicant countries, it was suggested that payments in cash or in kind should be considered as possible alternatives.
31. The Executive Committee strongly supported the Concept Paper presented by the WHO and requested both the FAO and WHO to further develop Option 3 of the document related to funding structures as soon as possible so that it could be presented for consideration and comment at Coordinating Committee meetings. The Executive Committee further requested that the document should be revised on the basis of the Coordinating Committee discussions so that it might be examined at the WHO Executive Board in January 2003, the extraordinary Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in February 2003 and the World Health Assembly in May 2003. The representative of WHO took note of the comments and suggestions made during the debate with a view to incorporating them into the final documentation for the project and Trust Fund.
32. The Executive Committee recalled that the 24th Session of the Commission had amended and adopted the Strategic Framework, including the Strategic Vision Statement. The Commission had agreed that the draft Medium-Term Plan (MTP) would be revised by the Secretariat in the light of the decisions of the 24th Session and the comments received, and that it should include cost estimates to determine whether the objectives could be met within achievable resources. The revised MTP had been circulated in August 2001 and revised in the light of the comments in order to prepare the document under consideration at the present session.
33. The Executive Committee noted that Regional Committees would have to opportunity to contribute to the development of the MTP, that would be subsequently considered by the next regular sessions of the Executive Committee and the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Executive Committee noted that as a result of the Codex Evaluation, further changes might be required to the MTP and that this would have to be addressed prior to its finalization.
34. The Executive Committee noted that few comments had been received so far and encouraged Regional Coordinating Committees to provide further input to the development of the MTP in view of its importance for Codex work.
35. The Executive Committee noted some questions on the structure of the MTP and whether it should describe activities in general terms for planning purposes or include specific proposals for new work. The Secretariat recalled that, following the decisions of the Commission, the structure of the MTP had been amended to follow the Objectives of the Strategic Framework. Specific activities had also been included to take into account the comments received, while some ongoing activities had been retained. The Chairperson stressed the importance of the MTP in order to provide an overall orientation to Codex work and to ensure that the activities of individual Committees were consistent with the objectives on the Strategic Framework. The MTP should also serve to assist in decision-making by the Executive Committee and the Commission when considering new work proposals submitted by Committees.
36. The Executive Committee agreed that the MTP should include activities that were generally recognized as important in the framework of Codex and that this might include both ongoing activities and new work to be considered in the future, with the understanding that Committees would establish their specific programme of work and that some flexibility should be allowed in the process.
37. The Executive Committee recalled that the explanatory notes and the comments received had been included for each activity in order to facilitate the discussion of the Draft and would be deleted in the final version. The Executive Committee considered the Draft Medium-Term Plan Objective-by-Objective and made the following amendments and comments as follows.
38. Some Members supported the written comments of the United States concerning the need to retain the sections of the Procedural Manual on endorsement by General Subject Committees, and the Executive Committee retained the current text.
39. The Executive Committee recalled that although the entire section on Criteria in the Procedural Manual had been revised in 1999, only the Criteria for the Establishment of Subsidiary Bodies of the Codex Alimentarius Commission had been the object of a detailed review. The Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities had been transferred to a separate section but had not been reviewed per se, and the Executive Committee agreed that such a review should be retained as a specific activity.
40. The Executive Committee discussed the opportunity of considering the use of the Internet and other advances in information technology as related to consumer information. Several Members expressed the view that it was not within the mandate of Codex and the Executive Committee agreed to delete this activity from the MTP. The Executive Committee also noted that the revision and updating of the General Standard on the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods was an ongoing activity.
41. The Executive Committee agreed to add the term "product tracing" in the title as it was consistent with the terms under consideration in other Codex Committees. Some Members supported the written comments of the United States and proposed to consider traceability as a priority for public health reasons and secondarily as a legitimate objective in a technical measure. The Member from Europe expressed the view that both aspects should be addressed and that no distinction should be established as to their importance.
42. After an exchange of views, the Executive Committee agreed to retain both aspects without mentioning priorities and to indicate that first consideration should be given to the use of traceability as a food safety risk management option, as already agreed at its 49th Session.
43. The Executive Committee had an exchange of views on whether the future work of the Commisison would include international standards or guidelines for the production, processing, labelling and marketing of foods derived from biotechnology, but decided that more information at the regional level was required before coming to a final conclusion.
44. The Executive Committee agreed to describe the activity as the "development of guidelines" rather than their "application". Some Members questioned the need to develop specific guidelines for the judgement of equivalence of measures. The Executive Committee also discussed the proposal for specific Committees to develop such guidelines, although it was noted that the Committee on Food Hygiene was considering some aspects of equivalence of food hygiene measures. The Executive Committee did not come to a conclusion and agreed that further consideration should be given to this complex question.
45. The Executive Committee agreed to delete Activity 28 - Establish model framework for food regulation and control as several Members pointed out that it was not within the mandate of Codex. The Executive Committee deleted Activity 41 - Code of Practice on Animal Feeding (Extension of Work Programme) as the Task Force was scheduled to complete its work by 2003 and it would not be appropriate at this stage to propose an extension of its work. The Executive Committee agreed that such a decision should be taken by the Commission in view of the report provided by the 4th Session of the Task Force.
46. Some Members proposed to delete this activity because the determination of the Appropriate Level of protection was the responsibility of member states and it was not clear how this task could be carried out in the framework of Codex Committees. The Executive Committee deleted this Activity and also noted a comment that this could be addressed through capacity building at the national level.
47. The Member from Asia expressed the view the provisions for pre-harvest measures in such guidelines should not be too prescriptive but should allow enough flexibility to be applicable in developing countries. The Executive Committee agreed that a reference should be included to "taking into account the particular needs of developing countries" and recognized that this was a relatively new area of work that would require detailed consideration. It was also agreed that coordination with other international organizations should be ensured as required according to the type of production covered.
48. As regards Activity 7, the Executive Committee recalled that the establishment of guidance for safe and prudent use of antimicrobial substances required a multidisciplinary approach, coordination between Codex Committees concerned and cooperation between all agencies concerned (FAO, WHO, OIE and perhaps the IPPC).
49. The Executive Committee agreed to delete Activity 39 since the elaboration of Risk Analysis Principles intended for governments had been approved as new work at the current session and would be discussed by the next session of the Committee on General Principles. It also agreed to delete Activity 35 on exchange of information about potentially hazardous foodstuffs moving in international trade and referred this proposal to the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems for action as required.
50. The Member from Latin America and the Caribbean proposed to delete Activity 1 - Guidelines for Risk Communication as it was already covered by the section on risk communication included in the Draft Working Principles for Risk Analysis. The Member from Europe proposed to retain it and to develop additional recommendations in this area. The Executive Committee could not come to a conclusion and agreed that this question required further consideration.
51. The Members from Africa and from Latin America and the Caribbean proposed to delete Activity 12 concerning the development of standards in cooperation with other international governmental organizations because such guidelines were under development in the Committee on General Principles, as decided by the 24th Session of the Commission. Other Members proposed to retain it with additional clarification. The Executive Committee decided to retain the Activity for the time being; however, if a final text in this area would become available in 2003, the Activity would be deleted from the MTP.
52. Some Members proposed to delete Activity 13 concerning the alignment of risk analysis principles with other areas of biosecurity. It was also proposed by the Member from Latin America and the Caribbean to amend the title of Activity 32 - Review of the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius to make it clear that only the SPS and TBT Agreements should be considered in the process.
53. As regards Activity 34, the Member from Asia and the Coordinator for the Near East did not support the integration into the Codex Alimentarius of OIE standards, and proposed that OIE standards should be taken into account in the framework of cooperation with OIE. The Members from Africa and from Latin America and the Caribbean proposed to delete Activity 8 as it applied specifically to OIE and was already covered in Activity 34. The Executive Committee did not come to a conclusion on these Activities and agreed that they would require further consideration after review at the regional level.
54. The Executive Committee noted that Activity 19 on the systematic review of existing standards was closely related to Activity 36 (Objective 3) that also concerned the review of standards to eliminate overly prescriptive provisions, and recommended combining these activities.
55. The Member from Asia proposed to amend Activity 3 as follows: "Review and where necessary revise the Procedure...utilizing modern information technologies and other mechanisms to increase the efficiency of Codex work and enhance the capacity of developing countries to respond to Codex issues"
56. The Coordinator for Asia proposed that Activity 40 should be reworded to read "Predicting dietary intake of pesticide residues" for clarification purposes.
57. The Member from Latin America and the Caribbean proposed to amend the title of Objective 5 to reflect that the activities mentioned also apply to the participation of NGOs.
58. The Member from Asia supported Activity 38 (Guidance for the conduct of, and attendance at working groups..) and indicated that the Guidelines should address the problems of developing countries participation in such groups but that it was premature to consider the relationship of the outputs of such groups to committee activities.
59. The Member from Asia proposed to retain only Activities 16 (Codex website) and 31 (Availability of Codex standards) and expressed the view that the other activities could not be carried out in the framework of Codex.
60. The Coordinator for the Near East proposed to replace the reference to consumers "perception, beliefs and motivations" with "consumer culture" as it covered all relevant aspects.
61. The Executive Committee noted that it had not been possible to reach a conclusion on several proposals put forward in the discussion. The Executive Committee therefore agreed that the Draft MTP should be revised by the Secretariat in the light of the comments made at the session, preferably by the end of July 2002. It would be circulated for consideration by the Regional Committees, as already agreed by the Commission, and for further consideration by the next (regular) session of the Executive Committee (to be held in June 2003). The Executive Committee re-emphasized that the Plan should be flexible enough to allow the introduction of new activities during its operational period.
62. The Executive Committee noted the information from the Secretariat that decisions of the 24th Session of the CAC were followed-up by relevant Codex Committees or included on the Strategic Framework or Medium-Term Plan as presented in the working paper.
63. The Executive Committee clarified that the guidance for the cooperation with international governmental and non-governmental organizations in the development Codex Standards and related texts would be included into Procedural Manual but no amendment would be made to the elaboration procedure itself.
64. The Executive Committee considered proposals for new work at Step 1 of the Procedure and proposals for the discontinuation of previously approved individual work items. The decisions of the Executive Committee regarding new work are tabulated in Appendix III to this report. In addition the Executive Committee made specific comments on some of the proposals as indicated below.
65. The Executive Committee approved the elaboration of the Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Validation of Food Hygiene Control Measures as Annex to the International Code of Practice – General Principles of Food Hygiene, however expressed concern about the heavy workload of the Committee on Food Hygiene. Following the question from the Member of Asian Region that it was not clear as to whether every food hygiene measure required validation or what was the practicality of requiring validation for each food hygiene measure, the Executive Committee clarified that this matter could be addressed by the Committee on Food Hygiene and that newly elaborated validation provisions should be consistent with the texts elaborated by the Committee on Food Import and Expert Inspection and Certification Systems.
66. The Executive Committee amended the title of the proposed Code to make sure that it was not limited to the reduction but also covered “prevention” of aflatoxins in tree nuts.
67. The Executive Committee decided not to approve the elaboration of the above documents on Guideline levels at this stage and referred them to the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants for consideration of these items together with further input from International Atomic Energy Agency regarding the Scope of the work.
68. The Executive Committee approved the proposals to discontinue previously approved work items as summarized in Appendix IV.
69. The Executive Committee considered the Proposed Draft Standards and Related Texts that had been submitted for preliminary adoption at Step 5. In this regard, the Executive Committee noted that when it was considering the adoption of Codex texts, the following decision of the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius should be taken into account, namely:
“When there is evidence that a risk to human health exists but scientific data are insufficient or incomplete, the Commission should not proceed to elaborate a standard but should consider elaborating a related text, such as a code of practice, provided that such a text would be supported by the available scientific evidence.”
70. The Executive Committee noted however that there was no guidance on how to interpret or apply this principle, especially in the establishment of maximum residue limits for veterinary drug residues and pesticides and also for microbiological contamination. It agreed that such guidance would be useful when considering either proposals for new work or when considering texts for adoption.
71. The decisions of the Executive Committee related to the consideration of the Proposed Draft Standards and Related Texts are summarized in Appendix II to this report. Except for the proposed draft standards submitted by the Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products for products in which milk components are substituted by non-milk components (see para. xx below), all of the texts submitted for consideration were adopted at Step 5 and advanced to Step 6. Specific discussions in relation to some of these decisions are summarized in the paragraphs below.
72. In addition to the written comments submitted, the Executive Committee requested that the Guidelines should take account of concerns and particular needs of specific sectors of small and/or less developed businesses, e.g., street foods.
73. In addition to the written comments submitted, the Executive Committee noted that in view of the pending JECFA reevalutation of flumequine and trichlorfon (metrifonate), the MRLs for these substances would not be considered for final adoption by the Commission pending the consideration and resolution of this review.
74. The Executive Committee noted that the 5th Session of the Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products had submitted the above Standards for adoption at Step 5 and that subsequent to this adoption a drafting group of the Committee would significantly revise the Standards on the basis of comments submitted at Step 6. In consideration that proposed draft standards submitted for adoption at Step 5 should be in an advanced form of elaboration and that extensive redrafting should be avoided as much as possible after adoption at Step 5, the Executive Committee returned the proposed draft Standards to Step 3. The Executive Committee noted that this decision would still allow consideration of the standards for final adoption at Step 5/8 at the Commission session in 2005.
75. The Regional Coordinator for Asia expressed its reservation to this decision.
Proposed Draft Amendment to the Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling
76. The Regional Coordinator for Asia expressed its reservations on the proposed draft amendments to the Guidelines, in particular Sections 3.2.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.2.3. The delegation proposed the deletion of these sections as they required mandatory labelling for five nutrients/components, i.e., sugars, dietary fibre, saturated fatty acids, trans fatty acids and sodium. It was suggested by the Regional Coordinator for Asia that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling reconsider this issue at its next Session because:
77. The Executive Committee adopted the text as proposed and forwarded the above discussion to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling for consideration.
78. The Executive Committee noted the comment that the Scope and method of application of the Guidelines should be extended to cover young children.
79. The Regional Coordinator for Asia expressed their reservation on the proposed draft MRLs for DDT in poultry meat at 0.1-0.3 mg/kg. It was noted that according to the 2000 JMPR evaluation based on the total data sets and the lowest violation rate, the EMRL for DDT should be established at the level of 0.3 mg/kg for poultry meat as the risk assessment done by JMPR showed that this level was safe for consumers. The delegation supported the establishment of the EMRL for DDT at an appropriate level to ensure consumer protection but not at a lower level which might result in barriers to trade.
80. The Executive Committee adopted the MRLs as proposed and forwarded the above discussion to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues for consideration.
81. The Executive Committee noted that the Committee on Meat and Poultry Hygiene had agreed that specific inputs on the Proposed Draft Code should be submitted directly to the Committee on Food Hygiene. The Committee on Fish and Fishery Products had agreed that the provisions of the Code were applicable to the Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products and that the text could be recommended for adoption at Step 5 (ALINORM 03/18, para. 9).
82. The Member from Asia reiterated the concerns expressed at the 24th Session of the Commission concerning the initial draft of the Code developed by the IIR, especially as some provisions in the Code were too restrictive and would cause difficulties in developing countries; further elaboration of the Code should therefore take these aspects into account. The Executive Committee noted that the Code was now under consideration in the Step Procedure and that member countries had the opportunity to comment and propose amendments as required in the framework of the Committees concerned.
83. The Executive Committee recalled that the Proposed Draft Code was not only a code of hygienic practice addressing food safety issues, but a code of practice that covered also essential quality aspects and product stability. It encouraged other concerned Committees to provide concrete input to the development of the Code and in particular the Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables.
84. The Executive Committee noted the progress report provided by the Committee on Meat and Poultry Hygiene and especially that the Committee had circulated for comments at Step 3 the Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fresh Meat. The Executive Committee noted that although the addition of appendices to a code under development did not generally require approval as new work, the Committee on Meat and Poultry Hygiene had sought such approval in view of the substantial work involved and in order to expedite the elaboration process in the Committee. The Executive Committee therefore approved as new work the elaboration of the following Appendices to be included in the Code:
85. The Executive Committee also approved as new work the extension of the Scope of the Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fresh Meat to include provisions for the hygiene of processed meat.
86. The Committee on Milk and Milk Products had considered the request from the FAO Global Lactoperoxidase Group of Experts to reconsider the provisions of the Codex Guidelines for the Preservation of Raw Milk by Use of the Lactoperoxidase System (CAC/GL 13-1991). The Committee had not considered this request in detail and had noted that the Executive Committee might provide advice on whether and how to proceed with a revision of the Guidelines in the framework of Codex (ALINORM 03/11, para. 13). The Executive Committee noted the request of the Global Lactoperoxidase Group of Experts to provide a scientific and/or technical basis for restricting the use and application of lactoperoxidase in international trade and recalled that the Guidelines had been originally developed by the Committee on Food Hygiene.
87. The Executive Committee agreed that this might be of particular interest to developing countries and invited Regional Coordinating Committees to ask the views of member countries on the use of that system, the relevance of the current Codex Guidelines and the need for their revision.
88. The Executive Committee recognized that all relevant health aspects of this complex issue should be considered in order to ensure that any revision of current provisions was based on risk analysis. The Executive Committee therefore agreed to ask the Committee on Food Hygiene to consider whether the provisions restricting the use of the lactoperoxidase system in international trade should be retained and whether the current Guidelines should be revised. The Executive Committee also noted that the initial evaluation by JECFA covered the process but that the chemicals used would require further evaluation, and agreed to ask JECFA to undertake a new risk assessment of the lactoperoxidase system, in order to ensure an updated scientific basis for further decision.
89. The Executive Committee noted that the CCFAC had agreed to develop Proposed Risk Assessment Policy Statement for the Application of Risk Analysis Principles to the Standard Setting Activities of the CCFAC in Conjunction with risk Assessments Performed by the JECFA and that this followed the recommendation of the 22nd Session of the Commission for Codex Committees to develop their risk analysis policies. The Executive Committee noted that this text would be developed in the Step Procedure, and would be ultimately incorporated into the Procedural Manual, to be read in conjunction with the general principles for risk analysis in Codex, currently under development. The Executive Committee recommended that the Committee give consideration to a simplification of the title and to some rewording of the text in order to make its application more general, since scientific advice might be required from other bodies than JECFA, especially concerning radionuclides.
90. As regards antimicrobial resistance, the Executive Committee noted that FAO, WHO and OIE were in the process or organising an expert consultation on antimicrobial resistance and that further action in the framework of Codex would depend on the results of the scientific advice provided by the Consultation. The Executive Committee also recalled that a multidisciplinary approach was necessary and agreed with the view of the Vice-Chair (Professor Slorach) that coordination between concerned Committees and Task Forces should be pursued and that all sources of antimicrobial resistance related to animal or plant production should be taken into account.
91. The Executive Committee also noted that the Task Force, that had met from 17 to 20 June 2002, had made substantial progress on the Proposed Draft Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding, with the exception of sections 6 and 7 that had not been considered due to time constraints and that would be redrafted for further consideration by the next session. The Proposed Draft Code had been returned to Step 3 as it was not possible to forward it to the Executive Committee at Step 5 due to the time schedule, with the understanding that all efforts should be made at the next session to advance it to Steps 5/8 for adoption by the 24th Session of the Commission.
92. The Executive Committee noted that the next regular session of Codex Alimentarius Commission would be its 26th session and that the 25th Session would be the special session to be convened in February 2003. It also noted that draft provisional agenda had been re-organized in order to consider important the consideration of standards and related texts at earlier stage of the session.
93. The Executive Committee endorsed the proposed draft Provisional Agenda, but noted that the 26th session of CAC may not have to consider the agenda item 10: "Trust Fund for participation of Developing Country in Codex Standard-Setting Procedures" if the special session in February 2003 would be able to finalise this issue. It was noted that the Commission at its 23rd Session had postponed consideration of Annual Meetings of the Commission and that this item should be added to the draft Provisional Agenda unless the question would be taken up within the framework of the Evaluation of Codex, in which case the subject could be considered under this item
94. The Executive Committee considered the two proposals provided by the Secretariat for the duration of the Session and agreed to recommend the extension of the schedule to a seven-day meeting namely 30 June - 7 July 2003.
95. There was no other business.
ALINORM 03/3A
APPENDIX I
CHAIRPERSON |
Mr. Thomas J. Billy | ||
VICE-CHAIRPERSONS |
Mr. D.B. Nhari | ||
Ing. Gonzalo Ríos | |||
Dr. Stuart Slorach | |||
MEMBERS ELECTED ON A REGIONAL BASIS: |
|||
AFRICA |
Dr. C.J.S. Mosha | ||
Advisers to the Member from Africa |
Mr. G. F. Nanyaro | ||
H. G. Mbilinyi | |||
ASIA |
Dr. Maria Concepción Lizada | ||
Advisers to the Member from Asia |
Mr. Chao Tiantong | ||
Dr Ushio Mitsuhiro | |||
EUROPE |
Mr Paul Mennecier | ||
Advisers to the Member from Europe |
Mme Roseline Lecourt | ||
Dr Leo Hagedoorn | |||
Ms. Maria Aparecida Martinelli | |||
Advisers to the Member from Latin |
Mr Julio Gastón Alvarado | ||
Mr. Arnaldo de Baena Fernandes |
|||
NORTH AMERICA |
Ms. Debra Bryanton | ||
Advisers to the Member from North America |
Dr. Edward Scarbrough | ||
SOUTH WEST PACIFIC |
Dr Gardner Murray | ||
Advisers to the Member from the South West Pacific |
Mr Peter Liehne | ||
Dr Steve Hathaway | |||
OBSERVERS |
|
Coordinator for Africa |
Dr Ben Manyindo |
Coordinator for Asia |
Ms. Noraini Dato’ Mohd. Othman |
Mr. Roseley Khalid | |
Coordinator for Europe |
Dr Milan Kováč |
Coordinator for Near East |
Dr. Mahmoud Abdel-Rahman Eisa Phone:+202 603 1351 |
Dr. Prof. Mohamed Fahmi Saddik | |
Maryam Ahmed Moustafa Mousa | |
Coordinator for North America and South West Pacific |
Mr. Chris L. Palmer |
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO) |
Mr Hartwig de Haen |
Mr. Tony Wade | |
Dr. Kraisid Tontisirin | |
Dr J.L. Jouve | |
Mr. John Markie | |
Mr A. Tavares | |
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO) |
Dr D. Nabarro |
Dr. J. Schlundt | |
Dr Y. Nakamura | |
Ms Jerri Husch | |
SECRETARIAT |
Dr. A.W. Randell |
Mr D.H. Byron | |
Ms. Selma H. Doyran | |
Ms. AnnaMaria Bruno | |
Mr. Jeronimas Maskeliunas | |
Mr. Yoshihide Endo | |
Ms. Gracia Brisco | |
Mr. Christophe Leprêtre | |
ALINORM 03/3A
APPENDIX II
LIST OF STANDARDS AND RELATED TEXTS CONSIDERED AT STEP 5
Item |
Title |
C'ttee |
Reference |
Status |
Proposed Draft Revised Guidelines for the Application of HACCP System: application in Small and/or Less Developed Businesses |
CCFH |
ALINORM 03/13, Appendix III |
Step 6 | |
Proposed Draft Maximum Residues Limits for Veterinary Drugs : Clembuterol, Deltamethrin Dicyclanil, Melengestrol acetate, Trichlorfon (Metrifonate) |
CCRVDF |
ALINORM 03/3, Appendix V |
Step 6 : (See also para. 70) | |
Proposed Draft General Principles of Meat Hygiene |
CCMPH |
ALINORM 03/16, Appendix II |
Step 6 | |
Proposed Draft Amendments to Section 3.3 “Composition” of the Codex General Standard for Cheese |
CCMMP |
ALINORM 03/11, Appendix V |
Step 6 | |
Proposed Draft Standard for [Sweetened Condensed Milk with Vegetable Fat / Blend of Sweetened Condensed Milk with Vegetable Fat] |
CCMMP |
ALINORM 03/11, Appendix VIII |
Step 3 | |
Proposed Draft Standard for [Evaporated Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat / Blend of Evaporated Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat] |
CCMMP |
ALINORM 03/11, Appendix IX |
Step 3 | |
Proposed Draft Standard for [Skimmed Milk Powder with Vegetable Fat / Blend of Skimmed Milk Powder with Vegetable Fat] |
CCMMP |
ALINORM 03/11, Appendix X |
Step 3 | |
Proposed Draft Revisions to the International Numbering System (INS) for Food Additives (Mineral Oil – INS 905) |
CCFAC |
ALINORM 03/12, Appendix VII |
Step 6 | |
Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Prevention of Patulin Contamination in Apple Juice and Apple Juice Ingredients in Other Beverages |
CCFAC |
ALINORM 03/12, Appendix XI |
Step 6 | |
Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Mycotoxin Contamination in Cereals, Including Annexes on Ochratoxin A, Zearalenone, Fumonisins and Tricothecenes |
CCFAC |
ALINORM 03/12, Appendix XII |
Step 6 | |
Proposed Draft Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Application in the Framework of the Codex Alimentarius |
CCGP |
ALINORM 03/33, Appendix II |
Step 6 | |
Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods: Proposed Draft Sections : Section 5 – Criteria |
CCFL |
ALINORM 03/22, Appendix II |
Step 6 | |
Proposed Draft Amendment to the Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling |
CCFL |
ALINORM 03/22, Appendix VI |
Step 6 | |
Proposed Draft Guidelines for Use of Health and Nutrition Claims |
CCFL |
ALINORM 03/22, Appendix VII |
Step 6 | |
Proposed Draft MRLs for Captan, Chlormequat, Chlorpyrifos, DDT, Malathion, Parathion, Parathion-methyl, Pyrethrins, Thiabendazole |
CCPR |
ALINORM 03/24, Appendix III |
Step 6 | |
Proposed Draft Revised Guidelines on Good Laboratory Practice in Pesticide Residue Analysis |
CCPR |
ALINORM 03/24, |
Step 6 | |
Proposed Draft Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Produced using Recombinant-DNA Microorganisms |
CXFBT |
ALINORM 03/34, Appendix V |
Step 6 | |
ALINORM 03/3A
APPENDIX III
CONSIDERATION OF NEW WORK PROPOSALS
Item |
Proposal |
Committee |
Status |
1. |
Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Validation of Food Hygiene Control Measures: Annex to International Code of Practice-General Principles of Food Hygiene |
CCFH |
Approved (See also para. 65) |
2. |
Proposed Draft Code of Practice to Minimize and Contain Antimicrobial Resistance |
CCRVDF |
Approved |
3. |
Proposed Draft Revised Guidelines for the Establishment of a Regulatory Programme for Control of Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods |
CCRVDF |
Approved |
4. |
Priority List of Veterinary Drugs Requiring Evaluation or Re-evaluation |
CCRVDF |
Approved |
5. |
Proposed Draft Standard for Processed Cheese |
CCMMP |
Approved |
6. |
Proposed Draft Model Export Certificate for Milk and Milk Products |
CCMMP |
Approved |
7. |
Proposed Draft Revised Codex Standard for Whey Cheeses |
CCMMP |
Approved |
8. |
Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Aflatoxins in Tree Nuts |
CCFAC |
Approved |
9. |
Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Lead in Food |
CCFAC |
Approved |
10. |
Guideline levels for radionuclides in foods for long-term use |
CCFAC |
Referred to CCFAC (see para. 67). |
11. |
Revision or amendments to Guideline Levels for Radionuclides in Foods Following Accidental Nuclear Contamination for Use in International Trade (CAC/GL 5-1989) |
CCFAC |
Referred to CCFAC (see para. 67) |
12. |
Proposed Draft Working Principles for Risk Analysis intended for governments |
CCGP |
Approved |
13. |
Principles and guidelines for establishing risk-based ante- and post-mortem inspection systems for particular slaughter populations, including examples - Annex to the proposed draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Meat |
CCMPH |
Approved |
14. |
Principles and guidelines on systems for microbiological process control for meat, including establishment of performance parameters for outcomes of process control and implementation of national microbiological databases - Annex to the proposed draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Meat |
CCMPH |
Approved |
15. |
Annexes on processed meat products in the Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fresh Meat. |
CCMPH |
Approved |
ALINORM 03/3A
APPENDIX IV
DISCONTINUATION OF WORK
Item |
Proposal |
Committee |
Status |
1. |
Proposed Draft Guidelines for Residues at Injection Sites |
CCRVDF |
Discontinued |
2 |
Proposed Draft Maximum Levels for Cadmium in Crustaceans, Liver and Kidney |
CCFAC |
Discontinued |
3 |
Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits for certain pesticides |
CCPR |
Discontinued |
4 |
Proposed Draft Maximum Levels of Lead (Pb) in Bivalve Molluscs and Crustaceans |
CCFAC |
Discontinued |
APPENDIX V
1 WTO Document WT/DS231/R (29 May 2002): European Communities — Trade Description of Sardines; Report of thePanel .
2 CX/EXEC 02/50/1
6 Report of the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, ALINORM 01/41, paragraph 65.