ALICOM 99/17  |
| ALICOM 99/17 |
Conference on International Food Trade
|
Prospects for the Future: Nutritional, Environmental and Sustainable Food Production Considerations - Promoting Science-based Dialogue on Emerging Technologies and Problems |
by |
Dr Dieter Arnold, Federal Institute for Health Protection of Consumers and Veterinary Medicine, Berlin, Germany |
I. The Importance and Goals of Science-Based Dialogue on Emerging Technologies and Problems
A. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FOOD TECHNOLOGY FOR FOOD SAFETY, HEALTH AND ECONOMY
II. Mechanisms for Scientific Dialogue at the International Level
A. THE JOINT FAO/WHO EXPERT COMMITTEE ON FOOD ADDITIVES (JECFA)
D. EXPERT CONSULTATIONS TO ESTABLISH THE FUNDAMENTALS FOR SCIENTIFIC DIALOGUE
Dialogue on risk analysis terms related to food safety
Dialogue on the use of food consumption data in the exposure assessment of chemicals
E. THE FAO/WHO CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION AND THE FAO/WHO CODEX COMMITTEES
F. ELABORATION OF CODEX STANDARDS AND RELATED TEXTS
H. THE ROLE OF CONSUMER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE WORK OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS
III. Mechanisms for Scientific Dialogue at the National Level
1. Applied food technologies have an impact on human health and economy. They may be used to reduce losses due to spoilage, to extend shelf life, to improve safety, wholesomeness and nutritional quality of food. Certain technologies, such as heat treatment, have been in use for thousands of years. More recently, developed technologies such as food irradiation, high pressures at ambient temperatures or high intensity light pulses complement those techniques used to improve the microbiological safety of suitable foods. Supercritical fluids, e.g. carbon dioxide, are already being used for either the recovery of valuable food constituents or for the removal of unwanted ones.
2. Leadership in both research and application of modern food technologies increases the chances for exporting countries to succeed in a competitive world trade in food thereby securing employment and better economic development. To participate in this international food trade is of even greater economic importance to developing countries with their limited financial resources in terms of foreign exchange.
3. While the above technologies have something to do with the handling, storage and processing of foods, modern biotechnology has also begun to create foods with new molecular structures, e.g., replacers for natural fat.
4. Genetic engineering has developed genetically optimised higher plants by transferring isolated genes. The successful regeneration of intact and fertile plants has allowed the construction of transgenic organisms with new and more desirable characteristics, e.g., with resistance to pests, drought, or low temperature, with increased nutritional value, increased vitamin content, or reduced allergenic potential. Genetically modified soy, maize, potatoes, tomatoes, and cotton are already produced on millions of hectares all over the world. Dozens of new genetically modified food crops are expected to reach the market in the near future.
5. Genetic engineering helps to provide the food industry with genetically modified micro-organisms for the production of the large variety of enzymes it needs for mass production of basic foods. A whole series of foods is directly being produced with the help of micro-organisms, e.g., with improved starter cultures for food fermentation. Such uses may lower hygienic risks and improve process reliability. Many novel foods and food ingredients are already a reality on the markets.
6. The introduction of novel foods also raises new scientific questions related to appropriate risk assessment policies and their flexible adaptation to technical progress in order to protect the health of consumers and to avoid new barriers to trade. Many of the new foods are variants of well accepted existing foods. Foods that today are considered as safe may serve as the standard by which the safety of novel foods could be compared1,2,3. Therefore, the approaches for assessing novel foods are different from those applied to assess new chemical molecules.
7. In any case, a dialogue between researchers, biotechnological and agricultural industry, regulators, politicians, and well informed representatives of consumers on the best use of emerging technologies is a prerequisite of a free trade which provides a maximum number of people with the benefits of the results of modern science. If societies would not want to accept and people would not want to buy and consume what the food industry would be able to produce, nobody would have any benefit from sophisticated emerging technologies.
8. With increasing international travelling of people and with the availability of highly integrated systems and networks of mass transportation of goods, countries are becoming more and more interdependent in securing the varied food supply in accordance with the rapidly changing consumer demands. At the same time newly emerging problems of microbiological or chemical contamination of foods (e.g., by pathogens and/or toxins) cause an increase in food-borne diseases in parts of the world. Some of these hazards have the potential to also travel around the world and infect people in countries other than those of its origin.
9. In 1997 the annual value of world trade in food for human consumption already exceeded US $ 380 billion4. This enormous volume continues to grow, not the least thanks to the rapid progress of food science and technology. Although Western Europe still plays its predominant role, Asia is already the second largest contributor and will probably soon lead the world in food trade. These figures strikingly illustrate the interdependence of the world economy. Economical statistical data also show a definite link between freer trade and economic growth.
10. In order to promote such beneficial economic development there was a need to establish an appropriate world trading system, enabling countries no longer to discriminate between their trading partners and between their own and foreign products.
11. With the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the international body dealing with the rules of trade between its 136 member nations an important step has been made to establish such a system. At the same time a multilateral framework of basic rules for the development, adoption and enforcement of measures to protect human health and to minimise the potential negative effects on trade of such measures has been brought into force. With respect to food safety , the most important principles are laid down in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, or SPS Agreement 5.
12. In summarising the SPS Agreement one could state:
13. The elaboration of international food standards requires co-operation between all interested parties, i.e. governments, including regulatory scientists/agencies; food producers, industry and trade; and consumers. Co-operation between individual governments and regional supranational organisations as well as full participation of developing countries in the process still poses major problems. While food producers, industry and trade have organised themselves in many international organisations, the focus of the large majority of consumer organisations is still national. The underlying principles of food quality and safety assessment which form the basis for establishing a complete international food standard are still poorly understood by politicians and the public including the media.
14. At a time when consumers are demanding higher diversity, quality and safety of food, there is certainly no possibility left to simply maintain or lower the level of international safety standards. To avoid that under such circumstances national governments uphold or take new measures with the purpose of health protection from their view but with the effect of being regarded by others as disguised trade restrictions under the SPS Agreement, it is necessary to ensure that the basic requirement of the Agreement, namely that such measures be based on science can be met by institutionalised international co-operation and dialogue.
15. This chapter deals with international mechanisms for dialogue and decision making which have largely been established by FAO and WHO as the two parent organisations of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
16. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) is an expert body giving advice in the risk assessment of food chemicals, including natural constituents, food additives, contaminants and veterinary drug residues. It was established by FAO and WHO in response to recommendations made by a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Nutrition6 and by a Joint FAO/WHO Conference on Food Additives7.
17. Members of JECFA are scientists serving in their individual capacities as experts and selected by the two agencies on the basis of publicly transparent selection criteria and in consultation with their governments. It is important that FAO and WHO constantly review the terms of reference of JECFA and the expertise represented by its members to assure that it has the authority and responsibility to review all health aspects of food products, including for example the specific aspects of foods derived from contemporary biotechnology. Furthermore, FAO and WHO should consider making available more information on the backgrounds of experts involved in food safety evaluations of Expert Committees like JECFA.
18. In addition to expertise, a balance of geographic representation of the global membership of the two organisations is considered essential. Before an expert is formally invited, she/he has to inform the Joint JECFA Secretariat of any personal or financial interest in any substance on the agenda8.
19. JECFA has no regulatory mandate. However, through its recommendations, which are based on objective data, it contributes significantly to harmonised food regulation world wide. It also provides a link between those (mostly private) institutions that conduct the necessary research and those officially responsible for risk management.
20. The first meeting of the Committee was held in 1956. When later the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was established, it was decided that JECFA should provide expert advice to Codex on matters relating to food additives. However, JECFA is not a part of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme and is independent of the CAC. The Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) identifies additives for priority evaluation.
21. This Codex/JECFA System now covers contaminants (advice provided to CCFAC) as well as residues of veterinary drugs in food (advice provided to the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF)). Requests for assessment may also directly come from FAO and WHO Member States. In 1980, the WHO activities concerned with the safety assessment of food chemicals were incorporated into the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). Through 1999, a total of fifty-three meetings of the JECFA have been held.
22. Since JECFA is an independent scientific body, it is free to develop its own evaluation policies which have evolved over many years. A first comprehensive summary of the established "Principles for the Safety Assessment of Food Additives and Contaminants in Food" was published in 1987 in the "Environmental Health Criteria 70" 9. These principles have since continuously been amended and updated. A publication dealing with principles of the evaluation of residues of veterinary drugs is under preparation.
23. The WHO group of experts within JECFA is responsible for the toxicological evaluation and establishment of an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) or other exposure limits. ADI's established by JECFA are upper limits of dietary intakes which can be ingested daily over life-time without appreciable health risk according to contemporary scientific criteria and knowledge. For food additives, the FAO group of experts prepares specifications which describe the substance and conducts an intake assessment in comparison with the ADI. For veterinary drugs, the FAO group of experts reviews the studies relevant for establishing Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs). The MRLs are calculated taking into account established good practices in the use of veterinary drugs, the availability of analytical methods for enforcement and by using arbitrary conservative food consumption figures for the intake assessment.
24. During the meetings, working documents ("draft monographs") prepared by experts in the field are discussed and a draft report is adopted before the meeting is concluded. Subsequently, this draft report is only edited and the draft monographs are revised accordingly. The JECFA Secretariat publishes soon after the meeting a summary of the conclusions and recommendations to ensure the rapid dissemination of information. The full reports are later published in the WHO Technical Report Series. Toxicological monographs are published in the WHO Food Additives Series. The specifications and residues evaluations, respectively, are published in the FAO Food and Nutrition Paper Series.
25. The CCFAC or the CCRVDF reviews the JECFA recommendations and forwards them, if acceptable, to the CAC for adoption as Codex standards. JECFA periodically re-evaluates previously assessed substances in order to take account of new data and scientific progress.
26. The FAO/WHO/GATT Conference on Food Standards, Chemicals in Food and Food Trade which was held in Rome in 1991 (referred to as the "1991 Conference" in this text) and the 21st Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Rome, 1995) emphasised the importance of transparency in the food safety evaluations performed by JECFA. The Commission has encouraged FAO and WHO to consider the participation of qualified experts, put forward by International Non-Government Organizations (INGOs), in expert consultations and meetings on the basis of FAO/WHO rules and procedures. Such qualified experts have already participated in some expert meetings and consultations, including JECFA and some ad hoc Joint FAO/WHO Consultations. However, up to date the experience with allowing consumer INGO-nominated experts or observers to participate in expert meetings and consultations has been limited.
27. During its meetings, but out of its sessions, the Committee has regularly taken the opportunity to meet with the private sponsors of products in order to clarify certain aspects of the documentation submitted by them for evaluation.
28. While consumer INGOs criticise that experts meet behind closed doors and take far-reaching decisions, some Members of the Codex Alimentarius Commission have expressed a concern with generally allowing observers from any INGO to participate in expert consultations or JECFA or JMPR meetings, in order to preserve the scientific integrity of the meetings and freedom from any "outside interests". However, others argue that an open and transparent process is the best way to preserve scientific integrity, noting that observers representing the public interest can monitor the process.10
29. The JMPR is an expert ad hoc body which has evaluated pesticides over the last 30 years with the aim of estimating the maximum residue levels in food and feed which are likely to result from legally permitted uses of pesticides. The agenda of the meetings of JMPR is decided by the Joint Secretaries of FAO and WHO, based on the priority list proposed by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) and approved by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Before a pesticide can be considered for the JMPR priority list it must be available for use as a commercial product; the use of the pesticide must:
30. The current JMPR comprises the
31. The WHO Toxicological Core Assessment Group is responsible for reviewing pesticide toxicological data and estimating Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADI) for humans. In addition, as data and circumstances dictate, the Group estimates acute Reference Doses (acute RfDs) and characterises other toxicological criteria such as non-dietary exposures. The WHO Environmental Core Assessment Group's role is also to identify risks to organisms in the environment.
32. The FAO Panel reviews use patterns resulting from already approved national uses of pesticides (Good Agricultural Practices, GAPs), and other relevant data to base estimates of MRLs and of dietary intakes on it, e.g., supervised trials median residue values (STMRs) of pesticides in food and feed commodities and methods of analysis. The maximum residue levels are recommended to the CCPR as suitable for consideration as Codex MRLs.
33. Both WHO Core Assessment Groups12 and the FAO Panels have applied consistent scientific principles and data requirements in their respective areas over the years.
34. Residue definitions may be applied differently when some substances were used as pesticides or as veterinary drugs. This led to situations where two different MRLs for the same compound had been proposed depending on the use of the drug.
35. A joint meeting of experts from both JECFA and JMPR was held in February 1999 to resolve this issue. The CAC will hold proposed MRLs for such compounds at Step 8 of the elaboration procedure until harmonised MRLs have been developed by both relevant Committees.
36. Risks arising from the presence of micro-organisms (bacteria, viruses, fungi and protozoa and/or toxins produced by some of these organisms are difficult to assess and methods for their assessment are different from those well established to deal with chemical risks. The 1991 FAO/WHO Conference on Food Standards, Chemicals in Foods and Food Trade had already recommended that WHO, FAO and the CAC increase their efforts in the area of microbiological contamination of foods. The Codex Alimentarius Commission has requested FAO and WHO to establish a new Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee similar to JECFA and JMPR on microbiological risks, as microbiological risk assessment and scientific advice in this area were an essential basis for the work of the Committee on Food Hygiene13 (CCFH). This advisory body, therefore, should follow the model of JECFA and should receive direction from the CCFH on priorities for its programme of work.
37. The basis of the Codex Alimentarius is science. Panels of experts working in a wide range of fields of food science are contributing to every aspect of the Codex. Codex has stimulated international activities in areas such as, food composition, food chemistry, food technology, food microbiology, analytical chemistry, mycology, contaminants, pesticide and veterinary drug residues.
38. Of particular importance was the outcome (see below) of several consultations dealing with certain aspects of risk analysis and food safety. Such consultations have established the scientific fundament on which any future dialogue can be based.
39. The FAO/WHO Conference on Food Standards, Chemicals in Foods and Food Trade (1991) had recommended that the CAC and the Codex Committees responsible for the development of Codex standards, should make explicit the methods they have used to assess risk15.
40. The dialogue was initiated with a paper entitled "Risk Assessment Procedures Used by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its Subsidiary and Advisory Bodies"16 which was first submitted to the 20th Session of the Commission and was later also discussed at meetings of all relevant Codex Committees, JECFA, and JMPR.
41. In the period from 1995 to 1998, FAO and WHO convened a series of Joint Expert Consultations covering the fields of risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication, respectively:
42. The main recommendations on risk assessment and risk management were incorporated into the discussion paper "The Application of Risk Assessment Principles in Codex" 20 submitted to the 22nd Session of the Commission. The Commission adopted a basic set of terms on an interim basis. Revised draft definitions for risk management and risk communication have been proposed by the 14th Session of the Codex Committee on General Principles21 and were adopted at the 23rd Session of the Commission.
43. Despite intensive discussions in the past, there is still a need for further attempts to make fully explicit the role of Codex Committees such as, CCFAC, CCRVDF and CCPR, in providing risk assessment policy guidance to JECFA and JMPR.
44. At its 23rd Session, the Commission also recommended that FAO and WHO should emphasise the need for increased interaction and communication between expert bodies and the Codex Committees and should request the expert advisory bodies and the subsidiary committees to co-operate along the principles of risk analysis; Relevant Codex committees should also consider developing quality criteria for data used for risk assessment. FAO and WHO should strengthen transparency in scientific risk assessment. This includes transparency in the choice of experts and the advice being given including how uncertainties are addressed 22.
45. FAO and WHO should develop training programmes to increase the understanding of the risk analysis process and the role of risk communication, both for member countries and for international organisations active in Codex work; FAO and WHO should continue to assist, on a priority basis, developing countries by providing training at regional, sub-regional or national levels in introducing and applying different aspects of risk analysis.
46. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committees, when drafting their recommendations, use a precautionary approach. For example the ADI figures and other exposure limits are always expressed from zero to an upper limit in order to suggest that intakes should be kept as low as reasonably achievable. MRLs for residues of veterinary drugs in food (MRLVDs), for example, are set in a way that they are reduced to be consistent with good practices in the use of veterinary drugs and to the extent that practical analytical methods for routine monitoring are available. In the process of setting MRLs for residues of pesticides existing good agricultural practices play a similar role. It should be noted that the "good practices" themselves are defined and approved by national regulators on the basis of objective scientific data, such as residue depletion studies and field trials, respectively. The Committees do not recommend final standards when scientific evidence is incomplete for a full assessment of potential adverse effects.
47. This precautionary approach is different from the precautionary principle which has been incorporated and given a specific meaning in Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.23
48. Exposure assessment plays a critical role in the process of a scientific risk assessment. In response to the recommendations of the 1991 Conference, a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Food Consumption and Exposure Assessment of Chemicals was convened in 1997 24 to discuss the issues of assessment of dietary exposure to chemicals. Some of the relevant findings of the Consultation were:
49. The two main objectives which 1962 led to the establishment of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme and of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission were:
50. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is an inter-governmental subsidiary body of FAO/ WHO. There are currently 165 countries that are Codex members. The work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission is serviced by a secretariat located in FAO headquarters in Rome. The Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme is administered by FAO.
51. With the adoption of the SPS Agreement, the standards adopted by CAC dealing with food additives, pesticide residues, contaminants and veterinary drug residues assume a new and important dimension.
52. Two Committees play a particular role in co-ordinating with other international bodies: The Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) serves as a co-ordinating body for Codex with other international scientific and standard-setting groups working on methods of analysis and sampling and quality assurance systems for laboratories.29 The Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Certification and Inspection Systems (CCFICS) consults as necessary with other international groups working on matters related to food inspections and certification systems.30
53. The Codex Alimentarius is a collection of internationally adopted food standards presented in a uniform manner. These food standards aim at protecting consumers' health and ensuring fair practices in the food trade.32 "Standard" is meant to include any of the recommendations of the Commission intended to be submitted to governments for acceptance.33 The Codex procedure for elaboration of standards enables governments to participate at all stages.
54. The elaboration procedure can be accelerated under specified conditions and there is also a procedure available to revise a Codex standard. However, the unrevised standard will remain the applicable Codex standard until the revised standard has been adopted by the Commission. The Commission shall make every effort to reach agreement on the adoption or amendment of standards by consensus. Decisions to adopt or amend standards may be taken by voting only if such efforts to reach consensus have failed34.
55. Specific reference is made in the elaboration procedure to the need to consider the implications for the economic interests of the Members, e.g. in cases where the application of a standard such as a maximum limit for a contaminant or microbiological criteria would cause a significant reduction in the production and export of some food. The economic problems or trade issues put forward should be justified on the basis of quantifiable data.
56. At its 21st and 22nd Sessions, respectively, the Commission adopted two important decisions concerning the role of science in the Codex decision making process and the principles relating to food safety risk assessment: These included: Statement of Principle concerning the Role of Science in the Codex Decision-Making Process and the Extent to which Other Factors are Taken into Account35, and Statements of Principles Relating to the Role of Food Safety Risk Assessment 36.
57. The 1st statement of principles concerning the role of science in the Codex decision-making process and the extent to which other factors are taken into account underlines current practice of the Codex to base standards on sound scientific analysis and evidence. The 2nd statement opens the possibility to have regard, where appropriate, to other legitimate factors. The meaning of this 2nd statement is less clear and is still subject to different interpretations since the 13th Session of the Codex Committee on General Principles did not come to a consensus on the application of "other legitimate factors" and to what extent such factors should also be based on objective criteria, in order to prevent their use as a barrier to trade.
58. Factors which would be incompatible with the scientific basis of the risk assessment and/or which are irrelevant for health protection and the promotion of fair trade at the international level are to be excluded. In any case, the fact should be responsibly taken into account that the extent to which other factors are taken into account may have a significant impact on whether Codex standards can be used globally and are designed in the least trade restrictive manner possible. Factors which have always been considered and should also considered in future include for example:
59. Ordinary consumers only slowly realise that food safety standards are increasingly being set at the international, supranational and global level, rather than by their national governments. Only a few international consumer organisations are able and have a history to attend the sessions of the CAC and of Codex committees. Some international consumer organisations seemingly have substantial relevant scientific expertise within their membership, not the least because an increasing number of scientists engage themselves in promoting objectives and goals of consumer organisations.
60. Enhancing participation by consumer organisations at the levels of Codex Committees and of the Commission itself seems to be desirable since Codex standards are established to protect consumers and, therefore, consumers should have the right to participate. Participation by consumer organisations at this level may also increase the public acceptance of Codex standards if consumers were given the opportunity to monitor the process including its transparency and the preservation of its scientific integrity. Qualified representatives of consumer organisations may also contribute essential information relevant to Codex work. However, lack of expertise and insufficient training on policies and procedures used in Codex and the relationship between the work of Codex and other international organisations and agreements as well as limited access to documents seemingly limits the effective participation of consumer organisations in Codex.
61. Therefore, FAO and WHO as the parent organisations should continue to stimulate consumer awareness of the work of the Codex Alimentarius, by giving information mainly via electronic and other suitable mass media. Although suitable information for a better understanding of Codex is increasingly available from the web site of the agencies, it seems to be difficult for ordinary consumers to understand how the work of Codex protects their health and affects the quality of their lives. Too much information is apparently dispersed and hidden in a great number of readily available official documents and the numbering code makes it difficult to find the relevant discussions. The web sites of WHO FAO, and Codex, therefore, should offer more actual information in summarised and digested form and should more frequently provide the opportunity for both scientific and general discussion fora.
62. Both, the 19th and 20th sessions of the Codex Alimentarius Commission have recognized that national governments have responsibilities to enhance consumer participation in the work of Codex as well. It was concluded that the improvement of consumer participation was primarily a national issue and should be addressed as such by Member governments.
63. It seems to be largely insufficient to only have consumer representatives in national delegations to Codex committees. The emphasis should be on participation of consumers in all national advisory committees dealing with aspects of food quality and safety and on institutionalised regular consultation with consumers when deciding national positions before Codex meetings.
64. Member governments should actively participate in Codex work and should incorporate principles of risk analysis when establishing or updating national legislation on food safety matters. Furthermore they should also communicate and explain the basis of decisions to all interested parties (e.g., government agencies, consumer organisations, industry representatives, scientists, professional societies) and should consider the views of all interested parties when formulating the national position on a Codex matter. This requires that governments adopt appropriate structures and procedures that assure transparency and multidirectional dialogue, allow formal discussions of the opinions of the interested parties, in particular of consumers and of the private sector involved, and strengthen the working relationships among all interested parties. This co-operation is also of prime importance in risk communication.
65. Although risk communication may originate from official as well as from private sources such as industry, trade, consumers and other interested parties, governments have the main responsibility for risk communication when managing public health risks. For governments that are members of the CAC this is an important part of their responsibility to play an active role in the Codex process. Governments should promote awareness and understanding of the risk management decisions and should communicate risk information in clear and comprehensible terms.
66. It is important that member governments establish national Codex Contact Points in order to enable the dialogue necessary in the risk analysis process. They should ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to contribute to national positions on Codex matters, to the extent practicable and reasonable. They should also ensure that these positions are transmitted to Codex in a timely manner. Although the concrete operation of such Codex Contact Points will differ in each country, some core functions for Codex Contact Points have been defined by the CAC and may be more generally applicable.
1
Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation. Strategies for assessing the safety of foods produced by biotechnology. Geneva, 1991. World Health Organization.
2
Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation. Biotechnology and Food Safety. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper, 61, 1996, FAO, Rome
3
Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 1993.
4
After M. Kenny: "International trade: food quality and safety considerations", in: Food, Nutrition and Agriculture, 21, 1998. FAO, Rome, page 4.
5
WHO (in collaboration with the WTO) has prepared a document "Food safety and globalization of trade in food" which includes the text of the SPS Agreement (WHO/FSF/FOS/ 97.8 Rev.1, WHO, Geneva 1998).
6
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Nutrition. FAO Nutrition Meetings Report Series No. 29; WHO Technical Report Series No. 97
7
Joint FAO/WHO Conference on Food Additives. FAO Nutrition Meetings Report Series No. 11, 1956; WHO Technical Report Series No. 107, 1956.
8
ALINORM 97/8 Addendum and Consumers ' Involvement in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. Codex Alimentarius Commission, Twenty-third Session, FAO Headquarters, Rome, 28 June-3July 1999, para. 20
9
Principles for the Safety Assessment of Food Additives and Contaminants in Food. Environmental Health Criteria 70, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1987.
10
Consumers ' Involvement in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. Codex Alimentarius Commission, Twenty-third Session, FAO Headquarters, Rome, 28 June-3July 1999, paras. 20-21
11
FAO Manual on the submission and evaluation of pesticide residue data for the estimation of maximum residue levels in food and feed. FAO, Rome 1997
12
Principles for the Toxicological Assessment of Pesticide Residues in Food. Environmental Health Criteria 104, World Health Organization, 1990.
13
See for example, Report of the Twenty-third Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, 28 June-3 July 1999. Alinorm 99/37, para. 57 f)
14
Codex Alimentarius Commission, Procedural Manual, Tenth Edition, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1997, pp. 44-45.
15
Report of the FAO/WHO Conference on Food Standards, Chemicals in Food and Food Trade, FAO, Rome, 1991, para. 210.
16
Report of the Twenty-third Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, 28 June-3 July 1999. ALINORM 99/37.
17
Application of Risk Analysis to Food Standards Issues. Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, Geneva, Switzerland, 13-17 March 1995. World Health Organization. WHO/FNU/FOS/95.3.
18
Risk Management and Food Safety. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation, Rome, Italy, 27-31 January 1997. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 65, 1997.
19
The Application of Risk Communication to Food Standards and Safety Matters. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, Rome, Italy, 2-6 February 1998. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 70, 1999.
20
ALINORM 97/9 - Rev.1 (CAC/LIM 21).
21
Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Twenty-third Session, Rome, 28 June - 3 July 1999. Report of the Fourteenth Session of the Codex Committee on General Principles, Paris, France, 19-23 April 1999. ALINORM 99/33A, para. 11-15 and Appendix III.
22
Report of the Twenty-third Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, 28 June-3 July 1999. ALINORM 99/37, para. 58.
23
EC Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones). Report of the Appellate Body, AB-1997-4 . World Trade Organization , WT/DS 26/AB/R , WT/DS 48/AB/R, 16 January 1998., page 46, para. 120
24
Food Consumption and Exposure Assessment of Chemicals. Report of an FAO/WHO Consultation, Geneva, Switzerland, 10-14 February 1997. Food Safety Unit, Programme of Food Safety and Food Aid, World Health Organization, 1997 (WHO/FSF/FOS/97.5).
25
GEMS/Food Regional Diets. Food Safety Unit, Programme of Food Safety and Food Aid, World Health Organization, 1998 (WHO/FSF/FOS/98.3).
26
The Codex definition of MRLVD includes the following text: "....When establishing an MRL, consideration is also given to residues that occur in food of plant origin and/or the environment...."
27
Guidelines for Predicting Dietary Intake of Pesticide Residues (Revised). Programme of Food Safety and Food Aid, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1997 (WHO/FSF/FOS/97.7). WHO, Geneva, 1997.
Pesticide Residues Variability and Acute Dietary Risk Assessment. Report of an International Conference, 1-3 December 1998, York, United Kingdom. The Pesticide Safety Directorate, 15 February 1999.
28
See "Understanding the Codex Alimentarius" http://www.fao.org/docrep/w9114e/w9114e00.htm
29
Procedural Manual, Tenth edition, p. 91
30
Procedural Manual, Tenth edition, p. 94
31
Procedural Manual, Tenth Edition, pp. 20-23
32
Procedural Manual, Tenth Edition, p. 29
33
Procedural Manual, Tenth Edition, p. 18
34
Report of the Twenty-third Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, 28 June-3 July 1999. ALINORM 99/37.
35
Procedural Manual, Tenth edition, p. 146 (Decision of the 21st Session of the Commission)
36
Procedural Manual, Tenth edition, p. 147 (Decision of the 22nd Session of the Commission)
37
Consumers' Involvement in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission , ALINORM 99/8, February 99. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Twenty-third Session, FAO Headquarters, Rome, 28 June-3July 1999.