7. The Committee at its First Session had requested the IDF to review the Code for discussion at this Session, which had been subsequently approved by the Commission at its 21st Session.[3]
8. The Committee first discussed the status of the Code. The Delegation of the United Kingdom pointed out that among all Codex Committees only this Committee used the Code of Principles and stated that most of the articles were covered either by the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (GSLPF)[4] or individual standards and therefore, there would be no need for the Code. However, many delegations felt that the Code was necessary and preferred to send forward to the Commission for adoption and subsequent implementation by Member countries. The Committee noted that the Code clarified the Terms of Reference of the Committee and was a set of statements regarding the reservation of the names for milk and milk products which would provide for interpretation of the relevant sections of the GSLPF.
9. The Committee agreed to make reference to the Code in the labelling provisions of individual standards.
Article 2 - Definitions
10. The Committee agreed to delete the word "healthy" from the definition of milk as it was felt that the term "normal mammary secretion" was sufficient and to insert the word "milking" before the word "animals" to specify animals for milking.
11. The Committee noted that the term "functionally necessary" had been introduced in the definition of milk product to accommodate the use of substances necessary for manufacturing but not necessarily classified as food additives. The Committee decided to maintain the wording in the definition as presented. The Delegation of Canada asked how vitamin addition to milk and milk products could fit in the definitions. The Committee noted that these products were covered by Article 3.3 of the Code.
12. The Committee discussed extensively the definition of composite milk product. The Committee generally agreed that it did not wish to elaborate standards for composite products. Nonetheless, many delegations felt it necessary to have the definition of composite milk product for regulatory purposes while some delegations felt it unnecessary as they stated that composite products were covered by the GSLPF. The Committee considered replacing the word "mainly" either by numerical limit or other wording. The Delegation of the United Kingdom pointed out that these products were characterized by milk ingredients. The Committee decided to amend the definition of composite milk products as follows to accommodate this concept:
"'composite milk product': is a product of which the milk, milk products or milk constituents are an essential part either in terms of quantity or for characterization of the product, provided that the constituents not derived from milk are not intended to take the place in part or in whole of any milk constituent."Article 3.2
13. Discussion focused on protein standardization of milk, especially in relation to milk for direct consumption. Matters raised were: difficulties in monitoring whey protein/casein ratio (see para. 80); whether or not the inclusion of protein standardization in the Article encouraged downward standardization which would damage the image of milk; natural variation of protein content among species, seasons, etc.; whether or not a minimum level of protein was necessary; and labelling of protein standardized milk. Noting that liquid milk for direct consumption was regulated by national legislation, the Committee decided to keep the Article as presented. The United Kingdom expressed general reservations on the application of protein standardization. India advised that buffalo milk was being standardized when it was necessary to bring it to the protein level of cow milk by adjusting solids-not-fat level because buffalo milk contains not only higher level of fat than cow milk but also higher solids-not-fat level as well as protein level. India recommended standardization of solids-not-fat level in addition to protein in the Article 3.2.
Article 4.3
14. The Delegations of Canada, Germany and USA proposed to delete the last sentence of Article 4.3 as in their countries cheeses with modified composition were produced and marketed. The Committee decided to keep the sentence noting that where the individual cheese standard exists, the provisions in the individual standard should be followed and the name of the cheese could not be used for modified products unless specified in the standard. The Committee agreed to bring this Article to the attention of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling specifically in relation to individual cheese standards.
Article 6 - Origin of Milk
15. The Committee noted that the labelling distinction between cow milk and milks from other species in the existing Code had been deleted in the revised Code. The Delegation of India stated that: not all the milks were the same; buffalo milk should be recognized; premium products existed in the market; and the term "the consumers would not be misled" was subjective and therefore should not be in the definition. Noting that the concept of "misleading to the consumer" had been already included in the GSLPF and that in the revised Code all milks were treated in the same manner, the Committee decided to maintain the wording as presented. The Delegation of India expressed its reservation on this Article.
Article 7.2
16. The Committee agreed to insert the term "non-milk" before the word "product" in the last line for clarification.
Articles 7.3 &7.4
17. The Committee had a lengthy discussion on the use of dairy names for non-milk products containing milk constituents or products either at an essential level or less. The Committee felt that it was necessary to reserve dairy names for milk, milk products and composite milk products and to protect them from abuses. The Committee decided to make minor editorial changes to Article 7.3 and to reword Article 7.4 as follows to provide for the use of dairy names in the description of the product and in the list of ingredients of non-milk products containing minor amount of milk constituents, and at the same time to prohibit their uses for products intended to substitute milk or milk products:
"However, with regard to a product referred to in article 7.3, which contains milk ingredients, the term "milk" or a name of a milk product may be used for labelling and advertising purposes only to indicate the milk ingredients in the description of the true nature of the product and to list the ingredients in accordance with the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods.Article 8 - ReviewIf, however, the product is intended to replace milk, a milk product or a composite milk product, the name of the product which is substituted shall not be used, unless permitted in the country of sale."
18. The Committee expressed two opposite views: to retain Article 8; and to delete whole or a part of it. The Committee recognized that this kind of statement was not included in Codex texts except the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food. The Committee decided for the time being to substitute it with the article on review included in the Code of Ethics[5] with the omission of the term "health, safety and" as the Code does not cover safety aspects and to refer this Article to the Codex Committee on General Principles. Several delegations expressed their wish to have one more round of discussion on this Article.
Annex
19. The Committee agreed to include in the Annex the definitions of "reconstituted (product)" and "recombined (product)" as in Decision 5 of the present Code.
Status of the Code of Principles Concerning Milk and Milk Products[6]
20. After extensive discussions on which procedure to follow, normal or accelerated procedure, the Committee decided to advance the Code to Step 5 of the normal procedure for adoption by the Commission at its 22nd Session in 1997.
