ALINORM 04/27/11

JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME
CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION

Twenty-seventh Session
Geneva, Switzerland, 28 June - 3 July 2004

REPORT OF THE SIXTH SESSION OF THE CODEX COMMITTEE ON
MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS
Auckland, New Zealand, 26 - 30 April 2004

Note: This report includes Codex Circular Letter CL 2004/15-MMP

Contents
Summary and Conclusions page vii
List of Abbreviations page ix
Report of the 6^th Session of the Codex Committee on Milk
and Milk Products page 1
Summary status of work page 18
Paragraph
Opening of the Session 1 - 2
Adoption of the Agenda (Agenda Item 1) 3 - 5
Matters Referred and/or of Interest arising from the Codex Alimentarius
Commission and Other Codex Committees (Agenda Item 2) 6 - 14
Consideration of Draft Codex Standards and Related Texts
at Step 7 (Agenda Item 3)
Draft Amendments to Section 3.3 “Composition” of the General Standard
for Cheese (Agenda Item 3a) 15 - 22
Consideration of Proposed Draft Codex Standards and Related
Texts at Step 4 (Agenda Item 4)
Proposed Draft Standard for [Sweetened Condensed Milk with Vegetable Fat / Blend
of Sweetened Condensed Milk with Vegetable Fat];
Proposed Draft Standard for [Evaporated Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat / Blend
of Evaporated Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat];
Proposed Draft Standard for [Skimmed Milk Powder with Vegetable Fat / Blend
of Skimmed Milk Powder with Vegetable Fat] (Agenda Item 4a) 23 - 46
Proposed Draft Revised Standards for Individual Cheeses (Agenda Item 4b) 47 - 79
Revised Standards for Revised Standard for Dairy Spreads (Agenda Item 4c) 80 - 83
Proposed Draft Standard for Processed Cheese (Agenda Item 4d) 84 - 90
Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Whey Cheeses (Agenda Item 4e) 91 - 100
Proposed Draft Model Export Certificate for Milk and Milk Products (Agenda Item 4f) 101 - 108
Specific Food Additives Listing for the Codex Standard for
Fermented Milks (Agenda Item 5) 109 - 112
Proposal for a New Standard for Parmesan (Agenda Item 6) 113 - 124
Discussion Paper on the Elaboration of an Annex to the Codex General
Standard for Cheese (Agenda Item 7) 125 - 132
Other Business and Future Work (Agenda Item 8)
Methods of Analysis and Sampling for Milk and Milk Products (Agenda Item 8a) 133 - 137
Discussion Paper on a Proposed Revision of the Codex Standard
for Extra Hard Grating Cheese (Agenda Item 8b) 138 - 143
Fermented Milk Drinks 144 - 147
Proposal for an Amendment to the List of Additives included in Section 4
of the Codex Standard for Creams and Prepared Creams 148 - 149
Date and Place of Next Session (Agenda Item 9) 150

List of Appendices
Appendix I : List of Participants page 20
Appendix II : Draft Amendment to the Codex General Standard for Cheese page 36
Appendix III : Proposed draft Standard for a Blend of Evaporated Skimmed Milk
and Vegetable Fat page 37
Appendix IV : Proposed draft Standard for a Blend of Skimmed Milk and Vegetable
Fat in Powdered Form page 40
Appendix V : Proposed draft Standard for a Blend of Sweetened Condensed Skimmed
Milk and Vegetable Fat page 44
Appendix VI : Proposed draft revised Standard for Cheddar (C-1) page 48
Appendix VII : Proposed draft revised Standard for Danbo (C-3) page 53
Appendix VIII : Proposed draft revised Standard for Edam (C-4) page 58
Appendix IX : Proposed draft revised Standard for Gouda (C-5) page 63
Appendix X : Proposed draft revised Standard for Havarti (C-6) page 68
Appendix XI: Proposed draft revised Standard for Samso (C-7) page 73
Appendix XII : Proposed draft revised Standard for Emmental (C-9) page 78
Appendix XIII : Proposed draft revised Standard for Tilsiter (C-11) page 84
Appendix XIV : Proposed draft revised Standard for Saint-Paulin (C-13) page 89
Appendix XV : Proposed draft revised Standard for Provolone (C-15) page 94
Appendix XVI : Proposed draft revised Standard for Cottage Cheese (C-16) page 99
Appendix XVII : Proposed draft revised Standard for Coulommiers (C-18) page 104
Appendix XVIII : Proposed draft revised Standard for Cream Cheese (C-31) page 108
Appendix XIX: Proposed draft revised Standard for Camembert (C-33) page 114
Appendix XX : Proposed draft revised Standard for Brie (C-34) page 119
Appendix XXI : Proposed draft Standard for Mozzarella page 123
Appendix XXII : Proposed draft revised Standard for Whey Cheeses page 129
Appendix XXIII: Specific Food Additive Listing for the Codex Standard
for Fermented Milks page 132
Appendix XXIV : Proposed draft Template for Fermented Milk Drinks Provisions page 142
Appendix XXV : Replies of the 6^th Session of the CCMMP to Questions Referred
by the 23^rd Session of the CCMAS page 143

Summary and Conclusions
The Sixth Session of the Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products reached the following conclusions:
Matters for Consideration by the 27^th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission:
The Committee recommended the following draft Standards for adoption at Step 5:
- Proposed draft Standard for a Blend of Evaporated Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat (para. 46 and Appendix III);
- Proposed draft Standard for a Blend of Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat in Powdered Form (para. 46 and Appendix IV);
- Proposed draft Standard for a Blend of Sweetened Condensed Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat (para. 46 and Appendix V);
- Proposed draft revised Standard for Cheddar (C-1) (para. 79 and Appendix VI);
- Proposed draft revised Standard for Danbo (C-3) (also para. 79 and Appendix VII);
- Proposed draft revised Standard for Whey Cheeses (para. 100 and Appendix XXII).
Matters of Interest to the Commission:
In addition the Committee:
- considered that matters related to risk analysis were adequately covered by the work of other Committees and any inputs related to risk management would be provided as appropriate (para. 8);
- requested clarification as to whether the five-year timeframe for review of the status of development of draft standards would apply equally to Committees meeting annually as well as biennially (para. 12);
- retained the revised Amendment to the Codex General Standard for Cheese (Section 2.1) at Step 7 and to request comments on values for minimum protein content in cheese (para. 22 and Appendix II);
- retained all other proposed draft revised Standards for Individual Cheeses at Step 4 for further consideration at its next Session (para. 79 and Appendices VIII – XXI);
- returned the proposed draft revised Standard for Dairy Spreads, the proposed draft Standard for Processed Cheese and the proposed draft Model Export Certificate to Step 2 for redrafting by the Drafting Groups led by the EC, IDF and Switzerland respectively, circulation for comments at Step 3 and consideration at its 7^th Session (paras 83, 90 and 108);
- circulated for comments the revised specific food additive listing for the Codex Standard for Fermented Milks and requested a Drafting Group led by the United States to revise the list on the basis of the comments received for circulation, comments and consideration at its 7^th Session (para. 112 and Appendix XXIII);
- faced with the inability to make a decision on the proposal for a new standard for parmesan, agreed to seek guidance from the Commission by preparing specific questions so that direction could be provided on application of criteria for agreeing new work in Codex commodity committees (paras 120-121);
- agreed that a Drafting Group, led by France, prepare a paper to address the issue of naming non standardized dairy products for consideration at its next session with a view to seek advice from the Committee on Food Labelling (para. 132);
- agreed to consider a report prepared by the IDF/ISO/AOAC Working Group on methods of analysis and sampling in current Standards for milk and milk products and in standards under elaboration at its 7^th Session (paras 135-136),
- in view of the lack of consensus, deferred the consideration on the revision of the Extra Hard Grating Cheese Standard until its 7^th Session (para. 143);
- established a Drafting Group, led by Indonesia to consider how to proceed with the development of new work on Fermented Milk Drinks and to circulate a proposed draft Template for Fermented Milk Drinks Provisions for comments at Step 3 and further consideration at its 7^th Session, with the understanding that the document was circulated for comments on its contents only and not in regard to its development as either an addition to the current Standard on Fermented Milks or as a separate Standard (paras 146-147 and Appendix XXIV);
- agreed that IDF would prepare a project proposal for new work on the amendment to the list of additives included in the Codex Standard for Creams and Prepared Creams, for consideration at its 7^th Session (para. 148).
Matters of Interest to the other Codex Committees and Task Forces:
The Committee:
- recognised the importance of the use of chlorine, which is widely used in the dairy industry for hygiene purposes and agreed that its concerns would be adequately covered by the Codex committee on Food Hygiene (para. 10);
- drew the attention of the CCNFSDU to the need for a consistent application of the calculation of milk protein content (para. 13);
- forwarded the Sections on Additives and Labelling of the proposed draft Standards for: i) a Blend of Evaporated Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat; ii) a Blend of Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat in Powdered Form; iii) a Blend of Sweetened Condensed Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat; iv) Cheddar; v) Danbo; and, vi) Whey Cheeses to the relevant Committees for their endorsement (paras. 46, 78 and 99 and Appendices III-VIII);
- agreed to refer the use of Pimaricin to the CCFAC and asked that it be put on JECFA’s priority list for exposure assessment for its use on shredded, cut and sliced cheese in standards C-1, C-4, C-5, C-9, C-15 and the Mozzarella Standard as well as Pimaricin use in Mozzarella when used during the kneading and stretching process (para. 66);
- forwarded replies to the questions referred by the 23^rd Session of the CCMAS to the CCMAS and clarified that IDF 150, AOAC 947.05/ISO 11869 (Type I method) were the only methods to be considered for the determination of lactic acid (para 133 and Appendix XXV);
- forwarded comments to the CCMAS on the document “The Use of Analytical Results: Sampling Plans, Relationship between the Analytical Results, the Measurement Uncertainty, Recovery Factors and Provisions in Codex Standards”(para. 137).

List of Abbreviations Used in this Report

ADI Acceptable Daily Intake
ALOP Appropriate Level Of Protection
AOAC Association of Official Analytical Chemists
CAC/GL Codex Alimentarius Commission / Guidelines
CAC/RCP Codex Alimenatrius Commission / Recommended International Code of Practice
CCMMP Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products
CCFAC Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants
CCFL Codex Committee on Food Labelling
CCMAS Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling
CCFICS Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems
CCEXEC Executive Committee of the Codex Alimentarius Commission
CL Circular Letter
CRD Conference Room Document
EC European Community
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FDM Fat in Dry Matter
FSOs Food Safety Objectives
GI Geographical Indivcation
GMP Good Manufacturing Practice
GSDT Codex General Standard for the Use of Dairy Terms
GSFA Codex General Standard for Food Additives
JECFA Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives
IDF International Dairy Federation
INS International Number System
ISO International Organization for Standardization
OIE Office International des Epizooties / International Office of Epizootics
PDO Protected Designation of Origin
WHO World Health Organization

REPORT OF THE SIXTH SESSION OF THE CODEX COMMITTEE ON
MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS
OPENING OF THE SESSION
1. Dr Andrew McKenzie, Executive Director, New Zealand Food Safety Authority, opened the sixth Session of the Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products, which was held in Auckland, New Zealand, from 26-30 April 2004 at the kind invitation of the Government of New Zealand. Dr Steve Hathaway, Director of Programme Development Group, New Zealand Food Safety Authority, chaired the meeting. The Session was attended by 126 participants from 42 Member countries and one Member organization, and 3 international organizations. The List of Participants is attached at Appendix I.
2. The Delegation of the European Community presented CRD 1 on the division of competence between the European Community and its Member States according to paragraph 5, Rule II.5of the Rules of Procedure of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (Agenda Item 1)¹
3. The Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda as proposed. It agreed to discuss the following matters under Agenda Item 8 “Other Business and Future Work”
• Fermented Milk Drinks (request from the 26^th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission)
• Proposal for an Amendment to the List of Additives included in Section 4 of the Codex Standard for Cream and Prepared Creams (request from IDF).
4. The Committee considered a proposal of the Delegation of the United States, supported by several countries to move Agenda Item 6 “Proposal for a new Standard for Parmesan” before Agenda Item 4 “Consideration of Proposed Draft Codex Standards and Related Texts at Step 4” due to the fact that this matter had been on the Agenda of the CCMMP for several meetings without being discussed, however this proposal was not accepted. The Committee agreed to establish a Working Group² to consider this matter to facilitate its discussion in plenary. The proposal to extend the scope of the Working Group to consider Agenda Item 8 (b) “Discussion Paper on a proposed Revision of the Codex Standard for Extra Hard Grating Cheese” was also not accepted.
5. The Committee also agreed to establish a Working Group³ to consider Agenda Item 5 “Specific Food Additives Listing for the Codex Standard for Fermented Milk Products” with a view to facilitating its discussion in plenary.
MATTERS REFERRED AND/OR OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION AND OTHER CODEX COMMITTEES (Agenda Item 2)⁴
6. The Committee noted Matters Referred and/or of Interest Arising from the 26^th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex Committees regarding: Amendments to the Procedural Manual; Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards; FAO/WHO Trust Fund for Participation of Developing Countries in Codex Standards Setting Procedures; Decision of the 53^rd Session of the Executive Committee regarding the submission of new work proposals; Decisions of the 26^th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the 50^th Session of the Executive Committee and other Codex Committees regarding the work of the Committee; Revocation of Adopted Standards and related texts; and, Codex Guidelines for the Preservation of Raw Milk by Use of the Lactoperoxidase System (CAC/GL 13-1991).
7. In particular the Committee commented and/or made decisions on the following matters:
Risk Analysis⁵
8. The Committee noted that its work related to the elaboration of world-wide standards on milk and milk products with hygienic provisions provided by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH). The Committee considered that matters related to risk analysis were adequately covered by the work of other Committees and any inputs related to risk management would be provided as appropriate.
Fermented Milk Drinks⁶
9. The Committee agreed to discuss this matter under Agenda Item 8 “Other Business and Future Work” and established a Working Group⁷ in order to facilitate the discussion. (see paras 144-147)
Active Chlorine⁸
10. The Committee recognised the importance of the issue, noting that chlorine is widely used in the dairy industry for hygiene purposes. The Committee noted that the CCFH had established a Working Group to develop terms of reference for the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation and agreed that its concerns would be adequately covered by this Committee.
Endorsement of Methods of Analysis in Commodity Standards (request for clarification from the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling - CCMAS)⁹

Use of Analytical Results: Sampling Plans, Relationship between the Analytical Results, the Measurement Uncertainty, Recovery Factors and Provisions in Codex Standards¹⁰

11. The Committee agreed to discuss these matters under Agenda Item 8 (a) “Methods of Analysis and Sampling for Milk and Milk Products”. It established a Working Group¹¹ to facilitate the Committee’s discussion on the CCMAS document on the Use of Analytical Results. (see para. 137)
Time-bound decision-making¹²
12. The Committee requested clarification from the Executive Committee as to whether the five-year timeframe for review of the status of development of draft standards would apply equally to Committees meeting annually as well as biennially.
Protein Conversion Factor¹³
13. The Committee noted that the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Food for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) was revising the Codex Standard for Infant Formula and drew the attention of the CCNFSDU to the need for a consistent application of the calculation of milk protein content in the formula i.e. Kjeldahl nitrogen x 6.38, presently in the adopted standards for milk products and in the amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (Class Names), which was adopted by the 26^th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
Others
14. The Committee also noted that the CCFH had initiated work on the revision of the Code of Practice for Foods for Infants and Children.
CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT CODEX STANDARDS AND RELATED TEXTS AT STEP 7 (Agenda Item 3)
Draft Amendments to Section 3.3 “Composition” of the Codex General standard for Cheese (Agenda Item 3a)¹⁴
15. The Committee noted that the proposed draft amendment to the Codex General Standard for Cheese was adopted at Step 5, as proposed by the last Session of the CCMMP, and circulated for comments at
Step 6.¹⁵
16. The Committee recalled that the issue regarding the establishment of a minimum protein level for cheese, the methodology of expression of this level and a value for such minimum level had been considerably discussed during the last two Sessions. It also noted that during the last Session, it could not reach an agreement on a numerical value for minimum protein content and agreed, as a compromise solution, to a text that encompassed the principle that the protein content of cheese should be distinctly higher than the protein content of the milk from which the cheese was derived.
17. The Committee considered the draft proposed amendment and noted the concerns of various delegations that the text might create confusion when referring to “milk” alone as the raw materials used in cheese making may include other types of milk product; the wording did not rule out the use of protein standardization prior to cheese manufacture; and, did not take into account the protein content of dairy ingredients. The Committee agreed to a revised text (as provided in CRD 3), which did not rule out protein concentration of milk prior to cheese making or the use of other dairy ingredients, and which provided clarity to the fact that protein increase during cheese making related in particular to casein..
18. The delegations of Austria, India and Switzerland expressed their reservations regarding to this decision.
19. The Committee agreed that the amendment would better fit under Section 2.1 “Description”. The Delegation of Germany expressed its reservation to this decision.
20. Some delegations expressed the need to establish a numerical value for the minimum protein level in cheese as there are difficulties in verifying the initial level of milk protein in the milk used for cheese making and proposed levels of 4% and 6%. Other delegations expressed their concerns as to the establishment of a numerical value that might exclude some categories of cheese that are currently traded.
21. The Committee also noted that if a value was to be determined, it would be appropriate to include it in a Section on Composition.

Status of the Draft Amendment to Section 3.3 (Composition) of the Codex General Standard for Cheese

22. The Committee agreed to retain the revised Amendment to the Codex General Standard for Cheese (Section 2.1) at Step 7 (see Appendix II). In view of the lack of consensus on the establishment of a numerical value for minimum protein content in cheese, the Committee agreed to request comments on values for minimum protein content in cheese, justification for these values and the means of their expression (e.g. as on a dry matter basis or mass by mass basis) with the understanding that this information would facilitate discussion at the next Session.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX STANDARDS AND RELATED TEXTS AT STEP 4 (Agenda Item 4)
Proposed Draft Standard for [Sweetened Condensed Milk with Vegetable Fat / Blend of Sweetened Condensed Milk with Vegetable Fat]; Proposed Draft Standard for [Evaporated Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat / Blend of Evaporated Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat]; Proposed Draft Standard for [Skimmed Milk Powder Milk with Vegetable Fat / Blend of Skimmed Milk Powder with Vegetable Fat] (Agenda Item 4a)¹⁶
23. The Committee noted that the 50^th Session of the Executive Committee had returned the proposed draft Standards to Step 3, in consideration of the fact that proposed draft Standards submitted at Step 5 should be in an advanced form of elaboration and that extensive redrafting should be avoided after adoption at Step 5¹⁷ and that, consequently, the drafting group¹⁸ in charge of revising the proposed draft standards had been dismantled.
24. The Committee agreed to discuss this Agenda Item on the basis of a proposal prepared by the Delegation of Malaysia, as contained in working document CX/MMP 04/6/4-Add. 1.
Proposed Draft Standard for [Evaporated Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat / Blend of Evaporated Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat]
25. The Committee considered the document section by section and agreed to the following changes. It also agreed that decisions made on this text would apply to the two other proposed draft Standards under this Agenda Item as consequential changes, where appropriate.
Title of the Standard
26. The Committee changed the name of the Standard to “A Blend of Evaporated Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat” while deleting the square brackets, to clarify the nature of the products. The subsequent text was amended to reflect this decision. The Committee agreed to apply a similar approach (i.e. a Blend of … and vegetable fat) for the titles of the other two Standards.
Section 1. Scope
27. The Committee agreed that the scope of the Standard was limited to products intended for final consumption and deleted the reference to products intended for further processing.
Section 2. Description
28. In order to better describe the preparation of the product and avoid possible misinterpretation, the Committee simplified the Section to read “A Blend of evaporated skimmed milk and vegetable fat is a product prepared by recombining milk constituents and potable water, or by the partial removal of water and the addition of edible vegetable oil/fat or a mixture thereof, to meet the compositional requirements in Section 3 of this Standard”.
Section 3.3 Composition
29. The Committee removed the square brackets from this Section and agreed on the following values, while retaining the values for minimum milk protein in milk solids-not-fat :
a) Blend of Evaporated Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat
Minimum total fat 7.5%
Minimum milks solids-not-fat 17.5%
b) Blend of Evaporated Partly Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat
Total fat More than 1% and less than 7.5%
Minimum milks solids-not-fat 19%
Section 4. Food Additives
30. The Committee made the following changes and included only additives for which JECFA had assigned an ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake):
• Replaced Sodium Citrates (INS 331) with Sodium Dihydrogen Citrate (INS 331i) and Trisodium Citrate (INS 331iii);
• Replaced Calcium Carbonates (INS 170) with Calcium Carbonate (INS 170i).
Section 5. Contaminants
31. The Committee agreed to combine and simplify Section 5.1 “Heavy Metals” and 5.2 “Pesticides Residues” to read “The products covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum limits for contaminants and the maximum residue limits for pesticides and veterinary drugs established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission” for consistency with standardised language used in other standards for milk and milk products e.g. Codex Standard for Creams and Prepared Creams.
Section 6. Hygiene
32. The Committee added a paragraph to this Section for consistency with the language used in other Codex Commodity standards, as follows: “From raw material production to the point of consumption, the products covered by this standard should be subject to a combination of control measures, which may include, for example, pasteurization, and these should be shown to achieve the appropriate level of public health protection”.
Section 7.1 Name of the Food
33. In the second paragraph, the Committee deleted the square brackets and the text “For example: evaporated filled milk”, while retaining the rest of the paragraph.
Section 7.2 Declaration of Total Fat Content
34. The Committee deleted the wording “If the consumer would be misled by the omission” from the first paragraph to clarify that the total fat content should always be declared in a manner acceptable in the country of sale to the final consumer.
35. The Committee removed the square brackets and amended the second paragraph as follows: “A statement shall appear on the label as to the presence of edible vegetable fat and/or edible vegetable oil. Where required by the country of retail sale, the common name of the fat or oil from which the food is derived shall be included in the name of the food as a separate statement” to recognise the importance of informing the consumer as to the presence of edible vegetable fat/oil.
36. The Delegation of India proposed to add a sentence to the effect that milk fat content should be declared along with total fat content; however there was no support for this proposal.
Section 7.3 Declaration of Milk Protein
37. For consistency with the previous decision, the Committee deleted “If the consumer would be misled”.
Section 7.4 List of Ingredients
38. Some delegations were of the opinion that ingredients used for protein adjustment should be declared. However, in recognising that the text in this section was aligned with the parallel standard for milk products and that Section 3.1 “Raw Materials” adequately addressed the protein replacement, the Committee agreed to retain the text unchanged.
Section 7.5 Advisory Statement
39. In recognising the importance of retaining this statement for consumer information, the Committee removed the square brackets from the Section and modified the text to clarify that these products should not be used as substitute to infant formula.
Proposed Draft Standard for [Skimmed Milk Powder with Vegetable Fat / Blend of Skimmed Milk Powder with Vegetable Fat]
40. The Committee considered the document section by section and, in addition to the consequential changes (see paras 25), agreed to the following changes:
Title of the Standard
41. In accordance with the previous decision, the Committee changed the name of the Standard to “A Blend of Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat in Powdered Form”.
Section 4 Food Additives
42. The Committee made the additional following changes:
• Replaced Magnesium Silicates (INS 553) with Magnesium Silicate (INS 553i) and Talc (INS 553iii) to include only additives for which JECFA had assigned an ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake);
• Moved Tricalcium Orthophosphate (INS 341iii) with the other phosphates with the understanding that their combined total maximum level would not exceed 10g/kg;
• Clarified that the maximum level for BHA, BHT and TBHQ should be expressed as percentage on a fat or oil basis.
Proposed Draft Standard for [Sweetened Condensed Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat / Blend of Sweetened Condensed Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat]
43. The Committee considered the document section by section and, in addition to the consequential changes (see paras 25), agreed to the following changes:
Title of the Standard
44. In accordance with the previous decision, the Committee changed the name of the Standard to “A Blend of Sweetened Condensed Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat”.
Section 3.3 Composition
45. The Committee considered different values on the minimum total fat and could not reach a consensus; therefore it retained the values of 7-8 % in square brackets.

Status of the Proposed Draft Standards for [Sweetened Condensed Milk with Vegetable Fat / Blend of Sweetened Condensed Milk with Vegetable Fat]; [Evaporated Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat / Blend of Evaporated Skimmed Milk with Vegetable Fat]; and [Skimmed Milk Powder Milk with Vegetable Fat / Blend of Skimmed Milk Powder with Vegetable Fat]

46. The Committee agreed to forward the newly named proposed draft standards to the Commission for adoption at Step 5 (see Appendices III, IV and V). It also agreed to forward the proposed Sections on Additives and Labelling to the relevant Committees for their endorsement.
Proposed Draft Revised Standards for Individual Cheeses (Agenda Item 4b)¹⁹
47. The Committee recalled that at its 5^th Session it had agreed that IDF would revise the proposed draft standards for individual cheese varieties for circulation at Step 3²⁰.
48. The Observer of IDF introduced the document and pointed out that the basis for revision was the Guidance for Inclusion of Details in Codex Standards for Individual Cheese Varieties as presented in Appendix VII of ALINORM 03/11 and that several rounds of comment had been taken into consideration in the redrafting. The Committee noted that document CX/MMP 04/6/5 provided analysis of general comments submitted and recommendations for the revision of the documents.
General comments
49. The Delegation of Ireland, speaking on behalf of EU Member States, was of the opinion that cheeses intended for further processing should respect the provisions for the product intended for direct consumption except for the ripening time, when this was technologically justified.
50. The Delegation of Switzerland was of the view that the requirements in the different sections of the Standard were simplified and standardised. Because of the omission of necessary details, the Delegation proposed regrouping the standards into similar products as differences between some cheeses were negligible and that this regrouping would help to avoid misleading consumers and would encourage the elaboration of more general standards.
51. The Committee did not support this proposal as it recalled that the regrouping of the Standards has been already considered and that the decision not to pursue this work had already been taken. The Delegations of Switzerland and Italy expressed their disappointment with this decision.
52. The Delegation of Germany indicated that there was a need to include a sentence in the Scope clarifying that the name of the product may be used exclusively for cheese complying with the standard and that it was important to describe the “typical taste” of all cheese varieties. It proposed to ask IDF to formulate “typical taste” requirements for Standards (as it was already the case for Emmental, C-9) and also to elaborate minimum ripening provisions (i.e. for time and temperature) within the Scope of the proposed draft revised standards for individual cheeses.
53. Some delegations were of the view that ripening enhancing enzymes should not be allowed.
54. Some delegations were of the view that there was a need to introduce and define form, weight and shape dimensions of cheese as well as country of origin since these were important differentiating factors for individual cheeses and useful information for consumers.
55. The Committee agreed that it would not be feasible to develop specific taste descriptions for individual cheeses as currently there were no agreed criteria and methodology for their description. Some delegations noted that in the revised draft Standards the use of cheeses for further processing was accommodated and that the elaboration of specific provisions in relation to temperatures and period for ripening could lead to restrictions in the use of innovative technologies. The Committee agreed to proceed with an outcome-based approach and to consider the issue on a Standard-by-Standard basis.
56. The Committee decided to discuss the proposed draft Standard for Cheddar as the first of the Standards for individual cheeses, section by section, while identifying amendments of a horizontal nature that could be consequentially applied to all other standards.
Draft Revised Standard for Cheddar (C-1)
57. In addition to editorial changes, the Committee agreed to the following amendments.
58. The Committee deleted the preamble as its provisions were redundant and agreed a consequential deletion to all other Standards for individual cheeses where applicable.
Section 1. Scope
59. The Committee did not agree to include a reference to the use of the name of the product as it was already covered in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.
Section 2. Description
60. The Committee deleted the reference to “generally” in relation to the absence of gas holes in the second last sentence of the first paragraph and clarified the last sentence by including the reference to “manufacture” as well as “sold”. The Committee also amended the footnote to make a reference to Annex to the Codex General Standard for Cheese. The Committee agreed that the amendment should apply horizontally to all the Standards for individual cheeses containing this provision.
61. The Committee noted the difficulty in translating some expressions such as “firm-textured” into the French language. It agreed that a better qualifier of maturity and ripening denominations was “extent” instead of “degree” and therefore made amendments to this effect, therefore made a horizontal applicable amendment to this effect.
62. Some delegations were of the view that the use of ripening enhancing enzymes for the ripening of cheese should not be allowed, while others noted that the use of these enzymes was a common practice in a number of countries. Therefore, the Committee agreed to put ripening enzymes into square brackets in this section and throughout the rest of the Standard for further consideration.
Section 3.3 Composition
63. Different opinions were expressed regarding the reference level for milkfat in dry matter. One Delegation proposed to reduce the minimum level to 45 % while other delegations were of the view that upper level should be increased up to 60%. As the Committee could not reach a consensus, it agreed to put a range of 48% to 60% into square brackets.
Section 4. Additives
64. One Delegation proposed to take out Paprika Oleoresins (INS 160c) from the Colours Section as JECFA had not identified an ADI for this additive as a colour agent. The Committee noted clarification from the IDF that Paprika Oleoresins was included in the Codex General Standard for Cheese and therefore decided to retain it in this Section.
65. It was proposed to allow the use of Sorbic Acid and its salts up to 1000 mg/kg and the use of Propionic Acid and its salts up to 3000 mg/kg for both whole cheeses and sliced, cut, shredded or grated cheeses. The Committee noted that the use of these compounds were already authorized in the current text and agreed to express it more explicitly by including the footnote clarifying that the definition of surface and rind treatments were covered by the Codex General Standard for Cheese. Sodium Sorbate (INS 201) was also added to the list.
66. The Committee noted that the current text permitted the use of Pimaricin (INS 235) for surface and rind treatment only, and agreed to refer the use of Pimaricin to the CCFAC and asked that it be put on JECFA’s priority list for exposure assessment for its use on shredded, cut and sliced cheese in standards C-1, C-4, C-5, C-9, C-15 and the Mozzarella Standard as well as Pimaricin use in Mozzarella when used during the kneading and stretching process.
67. The Committee clarified that an ADI was established for Calcium Carbonate (INS 170i) as well as for Magnesium Silicate (INS 553i) and Talc (INS 553iii) but that there was not JECFA ADIs for Potassium Aluminosilicate (INS 555) and Potassium Silicate (INS 560) and therefore it made amendments to this effect in the food additive Section of the Standard. It agreed that this amendment should apply horizontally to all the Standards for individual cheeses containing these provisions.
68. Some delegations were of the view that the use of anti-caking agents should not be allowed as the use of corn, rice and potato flour and starches could provide the same technological function. The Committee did not further discuss this proposal.
69. The Delegation of the United States proposed to delete Sodium Nitrate (INS 251) and Potassium Nitrate (INS 252) from the list of preservatives in a number of standards under revision due to the public health safety concerns associated with the use of nitrates, such as formation of nitrosamines in cheese products and that it out weighed any technological purpose for its use, however, as these additives were permitted in the General standard for Cheese (A-6) for ripening cheese in general, there was not enough support for to this proposal. The Delegation also noted that several colours were not approved for use in foods sold in the United States and that foods containing these colours were deemed to be adulterated when sold.
Section 7. Labelling
70. The Committee noted that the reference level for of milkfat in dry matter (see para. 62) had not been resolved, therefore put square brackets on the reference to 48% fat in dry matter in the footnote on comparative claims.
71. It was proposed to provide additional clarification on the indication of the nature of dairy ingredients to consumers in Section 7. In this regard, the Committee noted that the Codex General Standard for Labelling of Prepackaged Foods required listing of ingredients in composite foods, therefore this provision was already covered by the standard.
72. The Committee agreed to delete the square brackets and wording in relation to “formulation under review” in the third footnote for clarification purposes.
Appendix
73. The Committee deleted the second sentence in the Section of the Appendix on Information on Usual Pattern of Manufacturing Cheddar as it was superfluous.
74. The Committee agreed to amend the wording clarifying the processing of cheddar in traditional manufacture in Section 1.2.
Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Danbo (C-3)
75. The Committee considered the proposed draft revised Standard section by section and agreed that horizontal changes made on the Standard for Cheddar might be applied equally to the revised Standard for Danbo. In addition to these consequential changes, the Committee made the following amendments:
Section 2. Description
76. The Committee had an exchange of views in relation to ripening provisions for Danbo intended for further processing. Some delegations were of the view that the last sentence of the second paragraph containing the above provisions should be deleted while others preferred to put it in square brackets. After some discussion, the Committee decided to delete this sentence as it was not considered necessary. The Delegation of Australia expressed objection to this decision. The Representative of IDF stated that a deletion of a differentiation between products for further processing and direct consumption, respectively, would require a reconsideration of the reference period for the normal ripening procedure,
Other proposed draft revised standards for individual cheese
77. The Committee started discussion on the proposed draft revised Standard for Edam, however due to time constraint was unable to complete this work. It therefore decided to suspend the revision on this and other remaining individual cheese Standards.
78. With regard to the ongoing work on individual cheese standards, the Delegation of France suggested that a higher priority should be given to consideration of these texts at the next Session of the Committee. The Delegation of Denmark pointed out the necessity of having a consistent approach to all individual cheese standards and that to ensure that decision on all standards be taken at the same time, the standards for cheddar and danbo should not be forwarded on their own. The Delegation of the United States expressed a concern that commercial reality in today’s manufacturing environment was not fully taken into consideration by the CCMMP’s discussion and that future progress on individual cheese standards might be impeded.

Status of the Proposed Draft Revised Standards for Individual Cheese

79. The Committee agreed to forward the Proposed Draft Revised Standards for Cheddar (C-1) and for Danbo (C-3) to the Commission for adoption at Step 5 (see Appendices VI and VII). It also agreed to forward the proposed Sections on Additives and Labelling to the relevant Committees for their endorsement. The Committee retained all other proposed draft revised Standards for Individual Cheeses at Step 4 for further consideration at its next Session (see Appendices VIII - XXI).
Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Dairy Spreads (Agenda Item 4c)²¹
80. The Committee recalled that the 5^th Session of the CCMMP had returned the Proposed Draft Standard for Dairy Spreads to Step 2 for redrafting by the Working Group led by the EC²².
81. The Delegation of the EC introduced the document and drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that some divergent comments could not be included and that in Section 3.3 two options were proposed for consideration and further guidance from the Committee.
82. Some delegations noted that the format of the document was not consistent with other dairy standards and that further clarification on terminology such as “half-fat butter” or “three-quarter butter” was necessary. The Delegation of India was of the opinion that the use of terminology such as “half-fat-butter” and “three-quarter-butter” was misleading. It was proposed to align this document with other relevant Codex standards such as fat and spreads, blended spreads and butter; to remove descriptive elements from the Scope and to further elaborate sections of Description, Additives and Labelling.

Status of the proposed draft Revised Standard for Dairy Spreads

83. The Committee returned the proposed draft Standard to Step 2 for redrafting by the Drafting Group led by the EC with the assistance of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Switzerland, United Kingdom and IDF on the basis of the above discussion and written comments submitted at the current Session. The revised document would be circulated for comments at Step 3 and consideration at its next Session.
Proposed Draft Standard for Processed Cheese (Agenda Item 4d)²³
84. The Committee recalled that the 50^th Session of the Executive Committee approved the elaboration of proposed draft Standard as new work²⁴ and that the proposed draft Standard was circulated at Step 3.
85. The Observer of IDF introduced the document and indicated that the key problem in further development of Standard was to get consensus on the general approach, especially on the description and the source of raw materials to be used in processed cheese production. The Committee noted that some additional work to solve this issue had been made by an informal Working Group and this was presented in CRD 13.
86. The Committee agreed with the proposal to substitute the current wording in sections 2 and 3.1 of the proposed draft Standard with texts proposed in CRD 13.
87. While there was a suggestion to discontinue the work on this agenda item, other delegations pointed out that the standard was important and that the document was a good starting point for further elaboration. However, substantive work was still needed.
88. It was proposed to consider developing provisions for processed cheeses with a low fat content, with no minimum fat level set to encourage the development of products with lower fat.
89. It was proposed to specify that cheese should constitute the largest single ingredient in the product so as to not mislead consumers.
Status of the proposed draft Standard for Processed Cheese
90. The Committee noted that substantial work was necessary on the proposed draft Standard, therefore returned it to Step 2 for redrafting by a Drafting Group led by IDF with assistance of Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand and United States on the basis of the above discussion and written comments submitted at the current Session. The revised document would be circulated for comments at Step 3 and consideration at the next Session of the Committee.
Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Whey Cheeses (Agenda Item 4e)²⁵
91. The Committee noted that the 50^th Session of the Executive Committee approved the revision of the Codex Standard for Whey Cheeses as new work.²⁶ It considered the text section by section and, in addition to editorial amendments, agreed to the following changes:
Section 2. Description
92. The Committee discussed a proposal to insert a numerical value for the whey protein/casein ratio in order to better qualify the products, as an alternative to the sentence requiring that the ratio should exceed that of milk. The Representative of IDF stated that a value of 0.8 would exclude some products currently present in the market and in recognising the impossibility to determine a justifiable value during the Session, therefore the Committee agreed to put the entire last sentence in the first paragraph in square brackets for further examination at its next Session.
93. The Committee added the term “whey” to the term “cheese” in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 for clarity purpose.
Section 3.1 Raw materials
94. For consistency with other standards, the Committee listed in the section the raw materials permitted for i) products obtained through the concentration of whey (i.e. whey, cream, milk and other raw material obtained from milk); and, ii) products obtained through the coagulation of whey (i.e. whey, milk, cream and buttermilk).
95. The Committee noted that similarly to the Codex General Standard for Cheese, the text did not contain a specific section on “Composition” and that relevant information was provided in Section 7 “Labelling”.
Section 4. Additives
96. The Committee added Calcium Sorbate (INS 203) to the list of additives and amended the INS number of Lactic Acid.
97. It noted the reservation of the Delegation of Switzerland as to the retention of Pimaricin (INS 235) in the list.
Section 5. Contaminants
98. The Committee combined the two sub-sections into one for consistency with previous decisions for individual cheese Standards (see para. 31).
Section 7.1 Name of the Food
99. The Committee deleted the example of “whey protein cheese” and simplified the language of the first paragraph; specified the second paragraph by adding the text “a whey cheese obtained through the coagulation of whey”; and, deleted the last paragraph as it contained a provision already covered in Section 7.1.1 of the General Standard for Cheese.

Status of the proposed draft Revised Standard for Whey Cheeses

100. The Committee agreed to forward the proposed draft standard to the Commission for adoption at Step 5 (see Appendix XXII). It also agreed to forward the proposed Sections on Additives and Labelling to the relevant Committees for their endorsement.
Proposed Draft Model Export Certificate for Milk and Milk Products (Agenda Item 4f)²⁷
101. The Committee noted that the 50^th Session of the Executive Committee approved the elaboration of a Model Export Certificate for Milk and Milk Products as new work.²⁸
102. The Delegation of Switzerland introduced the document and informed the Committee of the outcome of the informal meeting of the drafting group²⁹ who met before this Session to discuss questions in relation to the declaration of the country of dispatch and the country of origin and suggested amendments to Section I and II as presented in CRD 14.
103. The Committee considered the Model Export Certificate and made the following comments.
General Comments
104. The Committee expressed general support for the work of the drafting group. It was noted that: the certificate needed further elaboration with regard to the inclusion of a cover page providing clarification on the objectives, the terminology and its use; the certificate should have clear and well understood terms to facilitate its correct use; the requirements in the public health attestation part created difficulties for accepting dairy products on the basis on their compliance with the exporting country requirements; the certificate should also take into account the work of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fish Products (CCFFP); the acceptance of certificates issued in electronic format should be indicated, when feasible.
105. The Committee was informed that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) had completed the elaboration of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Milk and Milk Products, which introduced concepts of appropriate level of protection (ALOP) and Food Safety Objectives (FSOs). The Representative of IDF was of the view that the Code would provide a framework for establishing food safety stringency requirements and this should be taken into account in further work on the Model Export Certificate.
Specific Comments
Section I
106. It was requested to clarify the difference between the terms “Nature of Food” and “Nature of Product” and if both were needed. It was also proposed to add the General Standard for the Use of Dairy Terms as a reference to the footnote regarding the name of the food. The Committee agreed to delete the Customs Tariff Number because: it did not identify the product, it did not relate to human and animal health aspects; it was not known by relevant certifying authorities in many countries; and, it could create confusion and undue delay in the issuance of certificates and clearance of shipment. In addition, it was suggested to clarify what was intended for “number of units” and whether lot identification and manufacturing date should be given.
Sections II, III, IV
107. It was suggested: to separate and define the terms “Country of Origin” and “Country of Dispatch”; to have Country of Origin as optional; ; to reconsider and better specify the contact details for the manufacturer/exporter/importer with a view to simplify the certificate: and to refer to the Codex Code of Hygienic Practice for Milk and Milk Products only. The Delegation of EC was of the view that reference to export country criteria alone was not acceptable.

Status of the Proposed Draft Model Export Certificate for Milk and Milk Products

108. The Committee returned the proposed draft Model Export Certificate to Step 2 for redrafting by a Drafting Group led by Switzerland with the assistance of Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Canada, EC, France, India, Ireland, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Thailand, United States and IDF on the basis of the above discussion and written comments submitted at the current Session. The revised document would be circulated for comments at Step 3 and consideration at the next Session of the Committee.
SPECIFIC FOOD ADDITIVES LISTING FOR THE CODEX STANDARD FOR FERMENTED MILKS (Agenda Item 5)³⁰
109. The Committee recalled that at its 5^th Session it was decided that a drafting group would review and finalise the specific food additive listing for the Codex Standard for Fermented Milks for circulation, comments and further consideration at its present Session.
110. The Committee noted that the finalization of this work and the inclusion of the specific food additive listing in the Standard for Fermented Milk, adopted by the 26^th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, were particularly urgent.
111. The Committee considered the report (CRD 16) of a Working Group, led by the United States, which met during sessions, to revise Attachment 1 of the document CX/MMP 04/6/10. It noted that the revision was based on the following principles:
i) The food additive provisions contained in the GSFA would be used as a starting point;
ii) Only additives functional effects associated with specific additives in the Codex INS would be considered;
iii) Only additives functional affects identified as technologically justified for use in specific subclasses of fermented milks would be considered.
112. The Committee thanked the Working Group for the excellent work. In view of the need to scrutinise the revised specific food additive listing, it agreed to circulate the document for comments (see Appendix XXIII). It further agreed that a Drafting Group led by the United States with the assistance of Argentina, EC, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland and IDF would revise the list on the basis of the comments received for circulation, comments and consideration at the next Session of the Committee.
PROPOSALS FOR A NEW STANDARD FOR PARMESAN (Agenda Item 6)³¹
113. The 5^th Session of the CCMMP held discussions on the possibility of elaborating a new individual standard for parmesan but were unable to reach any agreement on whether or not to proceed with this work. Discussion was deferred until the 6^th Session of the CCMMP³². The Delegation of Germany was requested to introduce this Agenda item. In their absence, general discussion initiated on this Item.
114. Many delegations spoke on this proposal and the Committee again showed a deep division in their views. Although a clear majority of delegations supported elaboration of a new individual standard for parmesan cheese, a number of delegations were opposed to this. Several delegations pointed out that support for the proposal came from delegates from four continents.
115. The Committee suspended discussions on this agenda item and called for an ad hoc Working Group to meet in an attempt to resolve the disagreement. Some delegations proposed that the Working Group should also refer to the Discussion Paper on a Proposed Revision of the Codex Standard for Extra Hard Grating Cheese (CODEX STAN C-35-1978) (Agenda Item 8) in their discussions on the parmesan proposal, but this was not agreed by the Committee.
116. The Chairperson of the Working Group reported back to the Committee and presented the output of the Working Group as written in CRD 17. The report included a composite listing of the reasons put forward by different delegations in support of the proposal for a new standard for parmesan cheese, and a composite listing of the reasons put forward by different delegations in opposition to the proposal. Although a better understanding of the different position of delegations was reached in the Working Group, no consensus on the proposal for a new standard for parmesan was achieved.
117. Discussion was resumed in the Committee and the Chairman asked that each delegation summarise their primary reasons for support or opposition to the proposal. Again there was a marked lack of consensus.
118. The predominant reasons for support of the proposal were claimed to be issues of fair trade practice and consumer protection. These were as follows:
• “Parmesan” is a generic name;
• Extensive production and trade on a world-wide basis;
• Potential for misleading consumers on a world-wide basis because of inadequate standardization of cheeses currently named parmesan;
• Lack of a standard is an impediment to development of industry and meeting consumer needs, especially in developing countries;
• Any opposition to an individual cheese standard for parmesan on the basis of a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) established in national legislation is not applicable within the Codex mandate.
119. The predominant reasons for opposition to the proposal were also claimed to be issues of fair trade practice and consumer protection. These were as follows:
• The denomination “Parmigiano Reggiano” is officially registered as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) by the European Community and the European Community considers that there is an indissoluble relationship between the words “Parmigiano Reggiano” and “Parmesan”. In this context, use of the name “parmesan” would mislead consumers;
• The draft proposed Standard for “parmesan” concerns products that are traded under different names and in some cases with different national or regional standards, therefore cannot grouped within one Standard under the name “Parmesan”.
120. The Chairman indicated that there was insufficient agreement for the Committee to either propose new work on a standard for parmesan cheese or to reject the proposal for new work. Faced with the inability to resolve the issue, the Committee agreed to seek guidance from the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) by preparing specific questions so that direction could be provided on application of criteria for agreeing new work in Codex commodity committees. This would facilitate a definitive decision on the proposal for a new standard for parmesan.
121. The Committee agreed to the following text in respect of specific questions to be asked of the CAC.
The majority of the CCMMP members present at the 6^TH Session are of the opinion that the name “Parmesan” is and has been generic for quite some time. On the other hand the denomination “Parmigiano-Reggiano” is officially registered as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) by the European Community. The EC currently considers that there is an “indissoluble relationship” between the words” “Parmigiano-Reggiano” and “Parmesan.”
Reference to EC legislation is preventing a decision on the establishment of a world wide standard for Parmesan Cheese by the CCMMP. Further, the inability to reach a decision on this issue is hindering the work of the CCMMP on this matter and might have important horizontal implications for work in other Codex Committees.
Two questions are addressed to the Commission:
1. To what extent, if any, should a PDO recognized in EC legislation for a product otherwise considered to be generic by the majority of the members present be grounds for rejecting elaboration of a Codex standard when in the opinion of the majority of members present existing criteria for acceptance of new work have been met?
2. Should aspects of intellectual property protection e.g. trademarks, certification marks, geographical indications (GI’s)or PDO’s be considered as legitimate criteria by Codex when deciding on acceptance of new work or adopting standards?
If the answers to both questions are that these matters are not legitimate considerations for CCMMP, will the CAC request that the CCMMP begin new work on the promulgation of a standard for Parmesan Cheese?
122. The Delegation of Australia requested to include a new first question regarding the applicability of the criteria for the elaboration/revocation of individual standard for cheese (CX/MMP 98/6). This request was not discussed due to time constraints. The Delegation of France asked clarification to the Secretariat on the application by the Executive Committee of the criteria contained in ALINORM 04/27/22, Appendix III and mentioned in document CX/MMP 04/6/2, paragraph 22.
123. The Chairman noted at the end of the discussion that the inability to reach a consensus decision on the proposal for a new standard for parmesan did not mean that the Committee agreed to a linkage between the words “Parmigiano-Reggiano” and “Parmesan”, as is currently considered to be the case in the European Community.
124. Consideration of this Agenda Item will take place at the next Session of the Committee, taking into account the decision of the CAC.
DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE ELABORATION OF AN ANNEX TO THE CODEX GENERAL STANDARD FOR CHEESE (Agenda Item 7)³³
125. The Committee recalled that it had requested the IDF, in collaboration with France, to prepare a discussion paper on the possible elaboration of an Annex to the Codex General Standard for Cheese to encompass principles and provisions as necessary for the naming and labelling of cheese descriptions³⁴.
126. The Observer of IDF introduced the document and pointed out that the key issue for consideration was whether it was necessary or desired to regulate the use of the term “cheese” for those products which fall outside the scopes of existing standards for cheese products and the designation of which include the term in descriptive naming constructs. In noting that the labelling provisions of the Codex General Standard for Labelling of Prepackaged Foods require that such products be named by descriptive terms or names established by common usage, he indicated that currently there was no international specific guidance to manufacturers on how to select and use descriptive terms for such products. It was indicated that CRD 3 identified and analysed several options to address the issue.
127. Some delegations indicated that there was no need for further work on this subject as existing documents such as the Codex General Standard for Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, Codex General Standard for Use of Dairy Terms and General Standard for Cheese provided enough guidance in relation to the labelling of composite products containing cheese. They were of the opinion that the development of such a document, especially an Annex to the General Standard for Cheese, was inappropriate. It was noted that there was not enough information available on these products and as to whether there were problems in international trade related to these products.
128. The Delegation of France indicated that the document provided only a basic framework for consideration; that further work was necessary in order to address difficulties in defining products and that the format of an Annex to the General Standard for Cheese had some advantages.
129. Some delegations supported the development of an independent standard for these products as their characteristics varied across the countries.
130. Other delegations pointed out that the major problem was the use of the term “cheese” for denomination of non standardised products and that there was a need to decide on the fundamental issue of the type of document that should be developed: standard or guideline. It was not clear how much cheese was necessary in order to allow the use of term “cheese base” or “cheese speciality” and what was to be understood by cheese technologies.
131. The Committee concluded that the main problem with these products was labelling of a horizontal nature and related to the use of “cheese” in their descriptive designations, therefore the Committee agreed to seek advice from the Committee on Food Labelling on this matter.
132. The Committee agreed that a Drafting Group led by France with assistance from Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Malaysia, Switzerland and IDF would prepare a paper to address the issue of naming non standardized dairy products for consideration at its next Session with a view to forward it to the CCFL.

OTHER BUSINESS AND FUTURE WORK (Agenda Item 8)

Methods of Analysis and Sampling for Milk and Milk Products (Agenda Item 8a)³⁵
133. The Committee noted the comments prepared by the IDF/ISO/AOAC Working Group on Methods of Analysis and Sampling as contained in document CX/MMP 04/6/12-Add.1. With regard to the questions referred by the 23^rd Session of the CCMAS, the Committee agreed to forward the replies prepared by the IDF/ISO/AOAC Working Group. In addition, the Committee clarified that IDF 150, AOAC 947.05, ISO 11869 (Type I method) were the only methods to be considered for the determination of lactic acid (see Appendix XXV).
134. The Committee did not have time to discuss new methods of analysis for milk and milk products to be forwarded to the CCMAS for endorsement. It agreed to request information on methods of analysis and sampling required in standards for milk and milk products through a circular letter.
135. The Committee agreed to request the IDF/ISO/AOAC Working Group on Methods of Analysis and Sampling:
• to prepare a list of methods required in the standards currently being elaborated by the Committee on the basis of the information received;
• to review the current methods of analysis and sampling for milk and milk products and provide recommendations on updates to the list of methods;
• to prepare recommendations for sampling plans for milk products on the basis of the General Guidelines on sampling, recently finalised by the CCMAS.
136. The Committee agreed that the report of the IDF/ISO/AOAC Working Group covering the above points would be circulated and considered at its next Session.

The Use of Analytical Results: Sampling Plans, Relationship between the Analytical Results, the Measurement Uncertainty, Recovery Factors and Provisions in Codex Standards

137. The Committee endorsed the recommendations of the Working Group, who met during the Session (see para. 11) and agreed to forward the following comments to the CCMAS:
• The recommended procedures need more detail to be usefully and validly applied;
• They should clarify the difference between the reporting of analytical results, e.g. on certificates of analysis, and their use, e.g. in assessments of conformity. These are not the same thing;
• The suggested simple approach for the treatment of measurement uncertainty (in particular) and recovery needs to be examined to ensure it is valid and the acceptance criteria have the appropriate stringency;
• The procedures should be consistent with the Codex General Guidelines on Sampling in the general approach (conformity of product rather than conformity of results or of samples) and in the treatment of measurement uncertainty (required only when measurement uncertainty is significant);
• They should take account of sampling error in cases where sampling error is significant, in a way that is compatible with the Codex General Guidelines on Sampling;
• They should be integrated with existing guidance in the Procedural Manual on the application of sampling plans in commodity standards.
Discussion Paper on a Proposed Revision of the Codex Standard for Extra Hard Grating Cheese (CODEX STAN C-35-1978) (Agenda Item 8b)³⁶
138. The Delegation of Italy introduced the document and informed the Committee that the Codex Standard for Extra-Hard Grating Cheese was more than twenty years old and that there was a need to review and incorporate new technological developments and amend the list of food additives due to changes in their evaluation. The Delegation, therefore proposed to the Committee that work be initiated to revise the Standard.
139. Some delegations, in noting that the document provided a good basis for the revision, supported the proposal. It was also suggested that the Standard may need to change to an A-Type Standard.
140. The Committee noted that the revision on this standard had been carried out during the first three Sessions of the Committee and it had been suspended due to the lack of clarity as to its nature (i.e. individual cheese or group type standard).
141. Some other delegations pointed out that consideration of this matter was closely related to the decision on the standard for “Parmesan”, therefore they proposed to defer the discussion until the outcome of this discussion becomes available.
142. The Delegation of Greece was happy to see that raw materials for this type of cheese were milks and mixtures of these milks, whereas in other standards the reference was made to milks and raw materials obtained from milk.
143. The Committee noted that there was no consensus regarding the initiation of the revision of the Extra Hard Grating Cheese Standard and agreed to defer the consideration of this matter until the next Session of the Committee.
Others Business
Fermented Milk Drinks³⁷
144. The Committee noted the report of the Working Group (CRD 18), who met during the Session to consider how to develop new work on Fermented Milk Drinks, i.e. as an addition to the existing Standard for Fermented Milks or as a new Standard and its conclusion that there was no consensus in this regard.
145. There was consensus among the Committee Members that regardless of the decision on how to proceed with this new work on Fermented Milk Drinks, the Committee should not revise the provisions contained in Codex Standard on Fermented Milks.
146. The Committee agreed with the recommendation to establish a Drafting Group, led by Indonesia with the assistance of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand, United States, Vietnam and the IDF to consider how to proceed with the development of new work on Fermented Milk Drinks and prepare a proposal for the consideration at the next Session.
147. It also agreed with the recommendation to circulate for comment the attachment to the IDF comments, as contained in CX/MMP 04/6/2, Add. 1. It agreed to amend the document to include only provisions that were necessary to accommodate the recommendation made by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and to make it neutral as to the development of a separate standard or its inclusion in the Standard for Fermented Milks, since there was no consensus on this issue.

Status of the Proposed Draft Provisions for Fermented Milk Drinks

148. The Committee agreed to circulate a template for Fermented Milk Drinks Provisions for comments at Step 3 and further consideration at its next Session (see Appendix XXIV). It was understood that the document was circulated for comments on its contents only and not in regard to its development as either an addition to the current Standard on Fermented Milks or as a separate Standard.
Proposal for an Amendment to the List of Additives included in Section 4 of the Codex Standard for Creams and Prepared Creams³⁸
149. The Committee agreed that IDF would prepare a project proposal for new work on the amendment to the list of additives included in the Codex Standard for Creams and Prepared Creams, as requested by the 53^rd Session of the Executive Committee³⁹, for consideration at its next Session.

DATA AND PLACE OF NEXT SESSION (Agenda Item 9)

150. The Committee noted that the 7^th Session of the Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products was tentatively scheduled to be held in New Zealand in approximately two years time, subject to discussions between the Codex and New Zealand Secretariats.

Summary Status of Work

¹ CX/MMP 04/6/1 and CRD 3 (IDF).

² United States (Chair), Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, EC, Italy, New Zealand, Paraguay, Switzerland and Uruguay.

³ United States (Chair), Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, EC, France, Indonesia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand and IDF.

⁴ CX/MMP 04/6/2. Comments submitted by Indonesia, Mexico and IDF (CX/MMP 04/6/2-Add.1) and Indonesia (CRD 7).

⁵ CX/MMP 04/6/2, para. 5.

⁶ CX/MMP 04/6/2, paras 27-28.

⁷ Indonesia (Chair), Argentina Australia, Belgium, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, France Germany, Japan, India, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Paraguay, the Philippines, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam and IDF.

⁸ CX/MMP 04/6/2, para. 44.

⁹ CX/MMP 04/6/2, para. 53.

¹⁰ CX/MMP 04/6/2, para. 55.

¹¹ New Zealand (Chair), Australia, France, India, United States and IDF.

¹² CX/MMP 04/6/2, para. 14.

¹³ CX/MMP 04/6/2, para. 39.

¹⁴ ALINORM 03/11, Appendix V. Comments submitted by Canada, EC, New Zealand (CX/MMP 04/6/3); Australia, Mexico and Uruguay (CX/MMP 04/6/3-Add. 1); IDF (CRD 3); Uruguay (CRD 6) and India (CRD 8).

¹⁵ ALINORM 03/3A, para. 71 and Appendix II.

¹⁶ ALINORM 03/11, Appendices VIII, IX, X. Comments at Step 3 submitted by Canada, New Zealand, Poland and EC (CX/MMP 04/6/4), Malaysia (CX/MMP 04/6/4-Add. 1), Australia, Mexico and Uruguay (CX/MMP 04/6/4-Add. 2), Thailand (CRD 4), Uruguay (CRD 6) and India (CRD 8).

¹⁷ ALINORM 03/3A, para. 74 and Appendix II.

¹⁸ ALINORM 03/11, para. 112.

¹⁹ CX/MMP 04/6/5. Comments submitted by Argentina, Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, Switzerland and United States (CX/MMP 04/6/5-Add.1), Italy (CRD5), Uruguay (CRD 6), France (CRD 9) and the EC (CRD 12).

²⁰ ALINORM 03/11, para. 96.

²¹ CX/MMP 04/6/6. Comments submitted by Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and United States (CX/MMP 04/6/6-Add.1), Thailand (CRD 4), Uruguay (CRD 6), India (CRD 8), CRD 12 (EC).

²² ALINORM 03/11, para. 99.

²³ CX/MMP 04/6/7. Comments submitted by Australia, Canada, Colombia, France, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay (CX/MMP 04/6/7-Add.1), Malaysia, Mexico, Japan and Thailand (CX/MMP 04/6/7-Add.2), Italy (CRD 5), Uruguay (CRD 6), India (CRD 8), France (CRD 9), IDF (CRD 13) and the EC (CRD 15).

²⁴ ALINORM 03/3A, para 64 and Appendix XIII

²⁵ ALINORM 03/11 -Appendix XII. Comments submitted by Egypt, France and Spain (CX/MMP 04/6/8), Australia and Colombia (CX/MMP 04/6/8-Add.1), IDF (CRD 3), Uruguay (CRD 6) and EC (CRD 15).

²⁶ ALINORM 03/3A, para. 64 and Appendix III.

²⁷ CX/MMP 04/6/9, Comments submitted by Australia, Canada, Colombia, EC, Iran, New Zealand, United States and Uruguay (CX/MMP 04/6/9-Add.1), Mexico and Thailand (CX/MMP 04/6/9-Add.2), Uruguay (CRD 6) and India (CRD 8). Report of the Working Group on Model Export Certificate (CRD 14).

²⁸ ALINORM 03/3A, para. 64 and Appendix III.

²⁹ CRD 14 (Report of the Working Group).

³⁰ CX/MMP 04/6/10. Comments submitted by Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland and United States (CX/MMP 04/6/10-Add.1), Thailand (CRD 4), Uruguay (CRD 6) India (CRD 8) and EC (CRD 10). Report of the Working Group on Additives (CRD 16).

³¹ CX/MMP 00/18-Add.1. Comments from Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and IDF (CX/MMP 00/18-Add.1), France (CX/MMP 00/18-Add.2), Mexico (CRD 2), Uruguay (CRD 6) and EC (CRD 10). Comments on behalf of 15 Countries (CRD 11). Report of the Working Group on Parmesan (CRD 17).

³² ALINORM 03/11, para.126.

³³ CX/MMP 04/6/11. Comments submitted by IDF (CRD 3), Uruguay (CRD 6) and India (CRD 8).

³⁴ ALINORM 03/11, para. 129.

³⁵ Comments in response to CL 2002/11-MMP, part C submitted by New Zealand (CX/MMP 04/6/12), IDF (CX/MMP 04/6/12-Add. 1), Mexico (CX/MMP 04/6/12-Add.2) and Uruguay (CRD 6).

³⁶ CX/MMP 04/6/13. Comments submitted by Thailand (CRD 4), Uruguay (CRD 6) and India (CRD 8).

³⁷ ALINORM 03/41, paras 98 and 141.

³⁸ Comments by IDF (CRD 3).

³⁹ ALINORM 04/27/3, para. 20.