27. The Commission received a report from Dr. G.F. Wilmink (Netherlands). At its Third Session the Committee had requested governments to comment (at Step 3) on certain definite proposals for the following additives as to levels of use and foods in which the additives may be used: sulphur dioxide, sorbic acid and its salts, benzoic acids and its salts, as well as tentative proposals for the same additives in other foods and also for methylhydroxy-benzoate, ethylhydroxybenzoate, propylhydroxybenzoate and propionic acid and its salts. The Committee also made definite proposals of the same nature for the use of the following antioxidants: propylgallate, dodecylgallate, butylated hydroxyanisole, butylated hydroxytoluene, natural and synthetic tocopherols, and citric acid. Comments were also sought on the use of the following bleaching and maturing agents: ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, benzoylperoxide, chlorine dioxide and potassium bromate. The Committee also asked for comments on the recommendation that the use of calcium iodate, potassium iodate and oxides of nitrogen should not be continued. Concerning colouring matters, it was decided that further information was needed before proceeding with these. Work on emulsifiers, stabilizers, thickeners, enzymes and non-nutritive sweeteners was reported upon. The Committee considered the levels of additives proposed by the Codex Commodity Committees for their products acceptable, provided the additive had been evaluated by the Expert Committee on Food Additives. These decisions on additives were referred to the appropriate Codex Commodity Committees for incorporation into their standards.
28. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany pointed out that paragraph 14 of the Report of the Food Additives Committee was drafted in a manner which could be misleading in respect of the agreement by the Committee to a list of tolerances proposed for a number of antioxidants. In fact, as is stated at the end of paragraph 14, some delegations were of the opinion that antioxidants should be used only in those fats and oils intended for further processing.
29. The attention of the Secretariat and the Commission was drawn to the fact that in addition to ALINORM 66/12 the Secretariat of the Codex Committee had circulated a report directly to the participants at the meeting of the Committee. The Commission noted that there were no differences of substance between these reports except that the proposed tolerance of 400 mg/kg sulphur dioxide in glucose for manufacturing purposes was incorrectly quoted as 300 mg/kg in the report of the Committee secretariat. In the case of ALINORM 66/12, page 11, paragraph 27, calcium should also be included as one of the cations for sorbate salts. The Commission accepted the following corrigendum to ALINORM 66/12:
para 8, line one (Antibiotics as food additives and …)
para 14, insert at the end:-
| Tentative Proposal | ||
| Food Additives | Food | Maximum Level |
| Ascorbyl Palmitate | [Margarine] | Permitted tolerance to be established |
para 27, in the sub-paragraph beginning … “as regards antimicrobials”
“(a) some delegates maintained that these additives were not required” (para. 11 refers).
[in para 27 the sub-paragraph beginning “A number of delegates drew the Committee's attention to the use of ascorbyl palmitate …” does not appear in the report as circulated to participants.]
Governments are invited to take note of these matters and to take them into account in considering their comments on ALINORM 66/12.
30. The Commission was asked whether it is necessary to have food additive tolerances go through all the steps of the Procedure in view of their eventual appearance in the individual commodity standards. The Commission was of the opinion that food additives requirements would appear in the commodity standards which would usually proceed through all the steps of the Procedure. These requirements would have to be inserted in the standards in the early drafting stages and would be subject to endorsement by the Codex Committee on Food Additives. However, it was agreed that the Codex Committee on Food Additives could send out food additive tolerances to governments for comment outside the steps of the Procedure. In certain cases, the Codex Committee on Food Additives would be the Committee responsible for piloting tolerances through the steps of the Procedure, for example, for colours to be used in all foods or for food additives in foods for which there is no Codex standard proposed.
31. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Food Additives should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the Netherlands.
32. The Commission received a report from Mr. J.K. Kirk (United States). The Commission was informed that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene had agreed upon General Principles of Food Hygiene which were for consideration by the Commission at Step 5 (see paragraph 74). Based upon these General Principles of Food Hygiene, the Committee had developed Codes of Hygienic Practice for the following groups of products: canned fruits; vegetables and related products (at Step 5) (see paragraph 74); dehydrated fruits and vegetables, including edible fungi, (at Step 3). The latter Code of Practice had been sent to governments for comments and will be reconsidered by the Committee at its next session. Also to be considered by the Committee at its next session would be Codes of Hygienic Practice for frozen foods; eggs; fish processing plants; molluscan shellfish; tree nuts; certain fruit juice products; desiccated cocnuts; and quick frozen fruits, vegetables and related products. The Commission considered the Executive Committee's recommendations concerning revised terms of reference for the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene and adopted the following:
to draft basic provisions on food hygiene applicable to all food;
(i) to consider, amend if necessary, and endorse provisions on hygiene
prepared by Codex Commodity Committees and contained in Codex
commodity standards, or
(ii) to draft provisions on hygiene in respect of a particular food
coming within the terms of reference of a Codex Commodity Committee
at the request of that Committee;
to draft, where necessary, provisions on hygiene in respect of any food not assigned to any Codex Commodity Committee;
to consider specific hygiene problems assigned to it by the Commission.
The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the United States of America.
33. The Commission received a report from Mr. W.A. Moynihan (Canada). This report recorded the discussions of the Committee on General Principles of Food Labelling. The Committee had developed a general standard for food labelling based upon these General Principles. This would be sent out to governments for comments at Step 3. Definitions of terms and a general standard for the labelling of all prepacked foods were included in this standard. Also considered by the Committee were a number of items referred to it by Commodity Committees. The decisions on these items would be transmitted to the appropriate Commodity Committee for inclusion in their standards. The Committee had proposed certain changes in its terms of reference. The Commission took note of the suggested amendment and adopted an amendment to paragraph (b). The Committee's amended terms of reference are:
to draft provisions on labelling applicable to all foods;
to consider, amend if necessary, and endorse draft specific provisions on labelling prepared by the Codex Commodity Committees, drafting commodity standards;
to study specific labelling problems assigned to it by the Commission.
The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Canada.
34. During the session the Commission referred a number of matters to the next session of the Codex Committee on General Principles. These are contained in paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of this Report. In the discussion on the reports of the Codex Committees on Sugars, Fish and Fishery Products, and Processed Fruits and Vegetables, the question of the extent to which quality standards were part of the Codex Alimentarius was raised. It was agreed by the Commission that the Executive Committee should be asked to indicate in what form this question should be put on the agenda of the next session of the Committee on General Principles. The Codex Committee on General Principles would discuss this matter, as well as the problem of products which were sub-standard but fit for human consumption. The Secretariat was requested to gather information from governments as to how they dealt with the latter problem. The Codex Committee was requested to report on these subjects to the Commission at its next session.
35. The Commission, under Rule IX.10, confirmed that the Codex Committee on General Principles should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of France.
36. The Commission received a report from Mr. H.P. Mollenhauer (Federal Republic of Germany) on the second meeting of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling. The Commission was informed that a format of the “Standard Layout for a Standard Method of Food Analysis” had been sent to governments for comment at Step 3. It was proposed that this format should be used by all Committees in preparing methods of analysis. Methods of analysis for honey were considered by the Committee and would be sent to governments for comments at Step 3. The sampling plan for the numerical selection of samples in the quality evaluation of processed fruits and vegetables and frozen foods would also be sent to governments for comments at Step 3. Consideration of Proposals for methods of analysis for cocoa products and chocolate and on fruit juices would be sent to governments for comments at Step 3 together with a synopsis to be drafted by the delegates who had prepared the respective proposals. Consideration of methods of analysis for preservatives, antioxidants and other subjects has been referred to the next session. Methods of analysis for sugars, colouring matters, margarine, olive oil and enzymes had also been considered at the Second Session of this Committee. The table of contents of the general part of the chapter on Methods of Analysis would also be reconsidered. A list of organizations working in the field of methods of analysis of food compiled by the secretariat of the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling was regarded as suitable for issue to governments. The Committee had also proposed a change in its terms of reference.
37. The question of copyright in connection with the publication of methods of analysis had been raised by the Committee. The Commission suggested that the Legal Offices of FAO and WHO should examine this matter and advise the Commission at its Fifth Session.
38. In view of the possibility of duplication in the work of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling and the Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products, the Commission recommended that the Codex Committee should not consider methods of analysis for milk and milk products but that, upon publication of these methods of analysis, the methods of analysis for milk and milk products would be included in one publication.
39. The Commission examined the proposed revised terms of reference and adopted the following:
Terms of reference. In respect of sampling and analysis for the purpose of determining the composition of food:
to specify standard methods which are generally applicable to a number of foods;
(i) to consider, amend if necessary, and endorse draft methods proposed
by Codex Committees in the drafting of Codex Standards;
or
(ii) to develop at the request of and in collaboration with such
Committees such methods for subsequent endorsement by it;
to revise as necessary such methods; and,
to consider specific sampling and analysis problems assigned to it by the Commission.
The Commission agreed that, in interpreting these terms of reference, the widest meaning should be given to the words “composition of food”.
40. The Commission agreed that the list of organizations working in the field of methods of analysis of food compiled by the secretariat of this Codex Committee should be issued to governments for information.
41. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
42. The Commission received a report from Dr. G.F. Wilmink (Netherlands) on the progress made at the First Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues. The Committee had sent tolerances for malathion, hydrogen cyanide and inorganic bromide to governments for comment at Step 3. A list of priorities divided into two parts according to urgency was established for the guidance of the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues. The Codex Committee had made further recommendations to the Commission concerning modification of its terms of reference. The Commission also considered a proposal by the Government of the Netherlands recommending that the Codex Committee should be able to recommend, provided a need existed, provisional tolerances based on good agriculture practice, provided that either the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting or the Codex Committee had been able to make a toxicological evaluation of the pesticide concerned. After a discussion of these proposals the Commission set up an ad hoc Working Party to examine the relationship of the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting and the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues. The report of the Working Party as amended by the Commission is given below after paragraph 45.
43. The Commission adopted the unanimous recommendation of the ad hoc Working Party and decided that it would not at this time make changes in the terms of reference or working procedures of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues but that the new approaches proposed by FAO and WHO should be tried to see how they would speed up the consideration of pesticides.
44. The Commission received the report of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues but noted that Appendix V had not been adopted or fully accepted by the Codex Committee.
45. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the Netherlands.
The Working Party on Pesticide Residues appointed by the Commission met in the Canada Room at 15.30 on 10 November 1966. The following were present:
Australia, Dr. J.B. Mathieson; The Netherlands, Dr. G.F. Wilmink; France, Mr. R. Souverain; U.S.A., Mr. J.K. Kirk and Dr. Howard Spencer; Canada, Dr. D.G. Chapman (Chairman); WHO, Dr. F. Lu; FAO, Dr. F.W. Whittemore.
The delegate of the Netherlands indicated that the concern of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues was due to the fact that the present arrangements for the recommendation of tolerances by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues were unsatisfactory because they were entirely dependent on the prior establishment of an agreed acceptable daily intake, tolerance and method of analysis of a pesticide by the WHO Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues and the FAO Working Party on Pesticide Residues meeting separately. This led to undue delay in the recommendations of proposed draft tolerances by the Codex Committee.
The representatives of FAO and WHO then advised the Working Party on the new approaches which are being taken in an attempt to speed up the consideration of pesticides. These new approaches are:
In the future the FAO Working Party on Pesticide Residues and the WHO Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues will meet jointly under the name of the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues.
In addition to the recommendation of acceptable daily intakes, tolerances and agreed methods of analysis, consideration will be given to the recommendation of temporary acceptable daily intakes and temporary tolerances.
The Working Party was further advised that the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues will meet in Geneva from 14–24 November 1966.
At the request of the Working Party, the representatives of FAO and WHO agreed to bring to the attention of the Joint Meeting the content of the discussion which took place in the Working Party and at the Commission Meeting.
The representatives of FAO and WHO pointed out that at the Joint Meeting next week the Priority I list of pesticides, as prepared by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues will be considered first. They also indicated that the Report of the Joint Meeting (even if only in draft form) will be made available to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues before the end of February 1967.
In view of the fact that these new approaches to the establishment of acceptable daily intakes and tolerances are now being implemented, the Working Party felt that time should be given to determine the success of the new program.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Party recommends that, for the time being, no change be made in the present procedures and terms of reference specified for the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.
The Working Party further suggests that this matter be considered at the next meeting of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues and that if, in its opinion at that time the procedures are still regarded as unsatisfactory, a new recommendation from that Committee be placed before the Commission.
The above report met with the unanimous approval of the members of the Working Party.
46. The Commission received a report from Professor O. Högl (Switzerland), Chairman of the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate. The following standards had been sent out to governments for comment at Step 3 of the Commission's Procedure for the Elaboration of Standards, but comments had not been received in time for the meeting in February 1966: cocoa beans, cocoa nibs, cocoa mass (cocoa liquor), cocoa press cake, cocoa powder or cocoa, low-fat cocoa powder or low-fat cocoa, sweetened cocoa powder or sweetened cocoa, sweetened low-fat cocoa powder or sweetened low-fat cocoa, cocoa powder mixtures. These standards with the comments would be considered again at the 1967 meeting of this Committee. The standard for cocoa butter was reconsidered at the 1966 meeting and a new text which includes three subsidiary standards is being sent out to governments for comments, particularly with reference to the differences between the three subsidiary standards for this product. An explanatory note had accompanied the standard. The Commission noted a statement of the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany that in the explanatory note on cocoa butter the difference between the first product and the second product was incorrectly stated as being due to the fact that “additional raw materials are permitted”, namely cocoa press cake and cocoa powder. This would read: “additional starting materials are permitted”.
47. The standards for cocoa powder mixture, chocolate, milk chocolate, cream chocolate, couverture and dark chocolate, milk couverture chocolate, chocolate vermicelli and chocolate flakes and milk chocolate vermicelli and milk chocolate flakes had been sent to governments for comments at Step 3 and would be reconsidered at the next session. The question of fat-free cocoa solids in the standards for the various chocolates was also sent to governments for comments. The standards for composite and blended products, flavoured chocolate products and filled blocks, were deferred for consideration until the next meeting, when redrafts would be considered.
48. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Switzerland.
49. The Commission received a report from Mr. J.H.V. Davies (United Kingdom), Chairman of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils. The following draft provisional standards had been sent to governments for comments at Step 3 and would be considered at the next session: Part I - General Requirements; Part II - Specific Requirements for the Individual Oils, namely, soya bean oil; Arachis oil (syn. groundnut, peanut); cottonseed oil; sunflower seed oil; rape seed oil; maize oil; sesame seed oil; safflower seed oil; also lard, rendered pork fat; premier jus; edible tallow. A general standard for fats had been developed and circulated for comments so that it might be considered at the next meeting of the Committee. Work on olive oil was proceeding in collaboration with the International Olive Oil Council, and it was expected that a draft would be available for the next meeting. The draft provisional standard for margarine was submitted to the Commission at Step 5 of the Procedure.
50. The Chairman reported that all commercially important fats and oils had been dealt with by this Committee with the exception of marine oils where the values of criteria which would have to appear in the standards would have such wide limits that the standards would be impossible to apply. It had been decided not to prepare drafts for these oils at this time.
51. At the next meeting of the Committee it was expected that it would have before it for reconsideration the standards already distributed for comments at Step 3, methods of analysis for the various criteria appearing in the standards and possibly a paper on hygienic aspects of these products.
52. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the United Kingdom.
53. The Commission received a report from Dr. O.R. Braekkan (Norway), Chairman of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, on the first session of the Committee. The Commission noted that the following draft provisional standards had been sent out to governments for comments at Step 3: frozen fillets of cod and haddock, frozen gutted Pacific Salmon, canned Pacific salmon. These standards would be reconsidered by the Committee at its next session in the light of these comments. Also under consideration were standards for salted herring, salted cod, canned sardines, sild, brisling and herring; canned tuna, albacore and bonito in brine or oil, canned shrimp and prawns, frozen shrimps and frozen lobsters. The delegation of France drew the Commission's attention to certain legislative requirements in countries restricting the use of the designation ‘sardines’ to the species Clupea sardina pilchardus (Walbaum). The delegation of France suggested that under Rule VI.3 of the Rules of Procedure a standard could be elaborated for canned Clupea sardina pilchardus (Walbaum), for a group of countries. The delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany and Portugal expressed their support of the suggestion of the delegate of France. The delegations of Canada, Denmark, Norway, the United States and the United Kingdom expressed the view that it would be better for the Commission to await developments at the next session of the Codex Committee before contemplating any decision on the French proposal. In addition, the delegations of Norway and the United Kingdom suggested that the procedure proposed by the delegation of France was not possible under the Rules of Procedure. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Norway.
54. The Commission received a report from Dr. J. von Rümker (Federal Republic of Germany), Chairman of the Codex Committee on Meat and Meat Products. The Committee, in the light of certain suggestions of the Executive Committee at its Eighth Session, combined and re-arranged the work of the following Sub-Committees: II on Transportation and Storage of Carcasses and Cuts; III on Classification and Evaluation of Carcasses and Cuts of Lamb and Sheep; V on Meat Hygiene; and VI on Additives used in the Manufacture of Meat and Meat Products. The “Proposals for the Preparation of International Standards for Commercial Units of Carcasses” containing descriptions of the cutting methods for certain commercial units of beef, veal, sheep and mutton were to be sent to governments for comments at Step 3. This work was to be extended to include the porcine species. The answers to the questionnaire on the description of cuts moving in international trade were to form the basis for a catalogue of such cuts. At its next meeting, the Sub-Committee I would consider a paper prepared on the classification and evaluation of carcasses and cuts of lamb and sheep, which had been the subject matter of Sub-Committee III, now dissolved. Sub-Committee V on Meat Hygiene was not being activated at this time since the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was continuing its work in this field. Close liaison would be maintained with OECD on this topic. The work of Sub-Committee II was likewise combined with that of Sub-Committee V since this work on transportation and storage of carcasses and cuts was concerned mainly with the meat hygiene aspects of the subject. A working paper would be prepared on this subject by the countries experienced in transportation and storage for the consideration of the main Committee at its next meeting. A number of important meat producing and exporting countries and expressed their satisfaction with the report and had agreed to cooperate in the work of Sub-Committee I in preparing a catalogue of cuts moving in international trade. The meat exporting countries which were Members of the Codex Alimentarius Commission but were not Members of OECD expressed interest in taking the opportunity of working with OECD on the subject of meat hygiene. The Commission agreed that the liaison point established by the Codex Committee should be expanded to include those countries which were not Members of OECD which wished to be included. The representative of OECD welcomed the prospective participation of an enlarged liaison group in this field and the Codex Alimentarius group would be invited to its technical meeting in February. It was agreed that the Codex Alimentarius Commission would convey this invitation to the interested parties, namely the liaison point appointed at the last meeting of the Committee and to the non OECD Members of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Concerning the future work of the Codex Committee, the Commission agreed that it would be worthwhile having a meeting of Sub-Committee I and the main Committee late in 1967. Sub-Committee I would have ready the catalogue of cuts moving in international trade, the comments at Step 3 on the “Proposals for the Preparation of International Standards for Commercial Units of Carcasses” containing descriptions of the cutting methods for certain commercial units of veal, sheep and mutton and the first drafts of the extension of this work to the porcine species; as well it would have before it a paper prepared by a Working Party in New Zealand on the Classification and Evaluation of Carcasses and Cuts of Lamb and Sheep, which the New Zealand delegation informed the Commission would be ready early in 1967 and would be sent at that time for the comments requested by the Committee.
55. The main session of the Committee would have before it the reports of Sub-Committee I and Sub-Committee IV on Meat Products, in addition to the work on transportation and storage prepared by Australia in collaboration with the Netherlands. It was also possible that there would be a report on the OECD work on the harmonization of sanitary regulations among OECD countries.
56. In view of the above the Commission concluded that the next meeting of the main Committee should be held in the second full week of November preceded by a meeting of Sub-Committee I. These meetings would be preceded in October by the meeting of Sub-Committee IV under the chairmanship of the Government of Denmark. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Meat and Meat Products should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and that the Sub-Committee on Meat and Meat Products should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Denmark.
57. The Commission was informed by the delegate of the United States, in the light of the Commission's discussion on the program of work and number of meetings of Codex Committees in 1967, that the United States would have no objection to postponing the first meeting of the Codex Committee on Poultry Meat, if this was the wish of the Commission. It was noted that most of the requirements for the products were either matters of food hygiene or food additives. The Codex Committees on Food Hygiene and Food Additives were requested to take up these aspects of the work. Although the first meeting was postponed, the Commission considered that the Committee should not be dissolved at this time.
58. The Commission therefore confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Poultry Meat would continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the United States of America.
59. The Commission received a report from Mr. G.R. Grange, (United States of America). The following draft provisional standards had been sent to governments for comments at Step 3 and would be reconsidered by the Committee at its next Session: canned asparagus, processed raisins and canned pineapple. The following draft provisional standards need some additions and revisions and will be reconsidered by the Committee at Step 4: canned strawberries, canned plums, and canned red raspberries and canned fruit cocktail. Of the standards which had already been drafted, priority had been given to those for jams, jellies and marmalades, canned mushrooms and canned pears. The sampling plan proposed for fruits and vegetables would be sent to governments for comments at Step 3, as well as be considered by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling and in the light of these comments it would be reconsidered at the next meeting. The draft provisional standards for the following products were submitted to the Commission at Step 5 of the Procedure: canned sweet corn, canned apple sauce, canned tomatoes, canned green beans and wax beans, canned peaches and canned grapefruit (see paragraph 75).
60. It was reported by the Secretariat that at a recent meeting of a group of governmental experts on the standardization of table olives, convened by the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC) a preliminary draft Codex standard for table olives, prepared by the United States, was taken note of and the group expressed its wish to collaborate in the work of standardizing the commodity with the Codex Committee on Processed Fruit and Vegetables.
61. The Commission, after discussing the work of the Committee requested it to draw up a draft general standard containing common provisions for related products to be used as a basis for determining whether such a standard would be more practical than separate and complete standards for each product.
62. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Processed Fruit and Vegetables should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the United States of America.
63. The Commission received a report from Mr. J.H.V. Davies (United Kingdom), Chairman of the Codex Committee on Sugars. The drafts of standards for the three types of white sugar had been sent to governments for comments at Step 3 and would be considered by the next meeting of the Committee. The draft provisional standard for lactose was submitted to the Commission at Step 5 of the Procedure (see paragraph 76). The draft standards for soft and brown sugar, glucose syrup, dry glucose syrup, dextrose monohydrate and dextrose anhydrous would be considered by the Committee next year at Step 7. Comments on these standards at Step 6 were being received from governments and these could be used to prepare the standards for presentation at Step 7 to the Committee at its next meeting. If the Standard for lactose were accepted by the Commission, it likewise could probably proceed to Step 7, provided it was sent immediately for formal comments by governments at Step 6. The attention of the delegates was drawn to the fact than an advance copy of this lactose standard has been sent to governments for preliminary information in order that the comments asked for at Step 6 may be produced promptly.
64. The question of whether there should be one or three standards for white sugar was raised in the Commission. It was pointed out however that this was one of the questions asked of governments for comment on the standard. The Committee would, in accordance with the decision of the Commission last year, decide upon this matter in the light of government comments.
65. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Sugars should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the United Kingdom.
66. The Commission received a progress report concerning the Ninth Session of the Joint FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products. At that time, some 71 countries had accepted the Code of Principles, 65 countries had accepted the standard for milk powder, 45 countries had accepted the standards for butter, butter-fat and evaporated milk, 46 countries had accepted the standard for condensed milk as well as standards for sampling and analysis, and 31 countries had accepted the general standard for cheese. The Commission noted that governments had been asked to confirm acceptances of the following standards: whey cheeses; evaporated milk (as to butter-fat content). Governments had also been asked to accept international individual cheese standards for: Danbo; Havarti; Samsoe; Danablu; Cheddar; Gouda; and Edam. The delegation of the United States questioned the use of the word “variety” in connection with some of these cheeses. The United States delegation, upon request during the discussion, indicated that it would propose to the next session of the Committee of Government Experts a definition of cheese “variety” which it was hoped would enable the inclusion of similar cheeses under the same standard.
67. The Committee had requested governments to comment on a number of other questions concerning milk and milk products, including comments on draft standards for Blue Stilton, Cheshire, Emmantaler and Gruyère cheeses. Governments had also been asked to supply certain information about Cottage Cheese, the term “butteroil”, the use of food additives in cheese, and certain statistics regarding intake figures for milk and milk products.
68. The delegate of France questioned whether the obligations of governments on accepting the standards under the Code of Principles on Milk and Milk Products were the same as for the acceptance of standards under the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius. This was a matter on which should be sought the views of governments accepting standards under the Code of Principles and the views of the Codex Committee on General Principles at its next session.
69. In the discussion of the reports of Codex Committees the question of the extent to which quality standards were part of the Codex Alimentarius was raised. It was decided by the Commission that the Executive Committee should be asked to indicate in what form this question should be put on the agenda of the next session of the Codex Committee on General Principles. The Codex Committee on General Principles would discuss this matter as well as the problem of such sub-standard products which were fit for human consumption. The Secretariat was requested to gather information from governments as to how they dealt with this problem. The Codex Committee on General Principles was requested to report on these subjects to the Commission at its next session.
70. The Commission received a report from the Secretariat on the Third Session of the Joint Group. Draft minimum requirements for apple juice, orange juice, grape juice and tomato juice, ready for consumption and preserved exclusively by physical means had been sent out to governments for comment. Comments had also been requested on draft minimum requirements for apple juice, orange juice and grape juice ready for consumption and preserved by chemical means. These comments were to be sent to the rapporteur (delegation of the United Kingdom), in the light of which revised proposals if necessary would be put before the next session of the Joint Group. The draft minimum requirements for chemically preserved apple juice, orange juice and grape juice, which had not been examined by the Joint Group at its last session were substantially the same as those for juices preserved by physical means except for the addition of preservatives. Draft minimum requirements for concentrated apple juice, orange juice, grape juice and tomato juice, preserved by physical means, submitted by the delegation of the United States, were also to be examined by the Joint Group at its next session. Draft minimum requirements for apricot, peach and pear pulpytype nectars, ready for consumption and preserved exclusively by physical means were also to be the subject of further examination by the Joint Group at its next session. In addition, preliminary draft minimum requirements for lemon juice, pineapple juice, grapefruit juice and blackcurrant juice would be placed before the next session of the Joint Group. The representative of the International Federation of Fruit Juice Producers reported that his Federation considered that fruit juices preserved by physical means and fruit juices preserved by chemical means should be the subject of separate standards. Some Members of the Commission considered that there should be separate standards for chemically as distinct from physically preserved fruit juices. Other Members considered that fruit juices could be covered by one set of standards for all fruit juices, containing a section on chemical preservatives (including labelling requirements) which could separately be accepted or rejected by governments. The Commission noted that as draft minimum requirements for certain fruit juices preserved by chemical means had been circulated for comment, governments would therefore have an opportunity to furnish their views on this matter for the next session of the Joint Group.
71. The Commission received a report from the Secretariat on the Second Session of the Joint Group. The Commission noted that a draft provisional general standard applicable to all quick (deep) frozen foods, a draft provisional standard for quick (deep) frozen strawberries and a draft provisional standard for quick (deep) frozen peas had been elaborated by the Joint Group, and that these draft standards had been sent out to governments for comment at Step 3. Preliminary draft standards for various quick (deep) frozen fruits and vegetables, which had been before the Joint Group, would be harmonised by the Secretariat as far as their format is concerned, on the basis of the draft provisional standards for quick (deep) frozen strawberries and peas. A preliminary draft general standard for quick (deep) frozen fruits and vegetables would be elaborated by the Secretariat, on the basis of (a) a draft general standard for quick (deep) frozen fruits and vegetables which had been drawn up by the delegation of the Netherlands and (b) features which the preliminary draft standards for individual quick (deep) frozen fruits and vegetables had in common with each other. Requirements regarding packaging would be developed on the basis of proposals which had been put forward by the Italian experts in the Joint Group and comments received thereon. A preliminary draft general standard for the labelling of quick (deep) frozen foods would be elaborated in detail by the Secretariat for consideration by the Joint Group. Proposals regarding quality control, sampling, test procedures, methodology, etc. would be put forward by the delegation of the United States. Preliminary draft provisional standards would be submitted for quick (deep) frozen sour cherries in sugar (Italy in collaboration with Romania) and for quick (deep) frozen broccoli (United States of America). The Commission was informed of the important contribution which the International Institute for Refrigeration was making to the development of the work of the Joint Group.
72. The Commission examined the terms of reference which had been agreed upon by the Joint Group and amended them slightly to read as follows:
“The Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on the Standardization of Quick (Deep) Frozen Foods will be responsible for the development of standards for quick (deep) frozen foods in accordance with the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius. The Joint Group will be responsible for general considerations, definitions, a framework of individual standards for quick (deep) frozen food products and for the actual elaboration of standards for quick (deep) frozen food products not specifically allotted by the Commission to another Codex Committee, such as Fish and Fishery Products, Meat and Meat Products, and Poultry and Poultry Meat Products. Standards drawn up by Codex Commodity Committees for quick (deep) frozen foods should be in accordance with the general standard laid down by the Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on the Standardization of Quick (Deep) Frozen Foods and should, at an appropriate stage, be referred to it for coordination purposes.”
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
73. The Commission received a progress report on the activites of the Working Party on Standardization of Perishable Foodstuffs of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. The progress report, which was prepared by the Joint FAO/ECE Agriculture Division of the UNECE was presented by the Secretariat. The Commission was informed that the Working Party on Standardization of Perishable Foodstuffs had developed European standards for a very wide range of fresh fruits and vegetables and that most of these standards had been accepted by the majority of countries participating in the work of the Working Party on Standardization of Perishable Foodstuffs. The Commission was also informed that close liaison was maintained by the Working Party with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Economic Community, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the International Organization for Standardization. The Commission was informed that the OECD had published illustrated interpretative brochures relating to many of the European Standards and that this work, which complements the work of the Working Party, was continuing. The Commission was informed that the Working Party, at its last session held in June 1966, had examined the Commission's request that consideration be given to the possibility of drawing up world-wide standards for the limited number of fresh fruits and vegetables moving in inter-regional trade, such as apples, pears, citrus fruits, table grapes, peaches, plums, new potatoes and onions. The Working Party was of the opinion that priority should be given to apples and pears and agreed that, as a first step, a meeting should be arranged to take place in Geneva in 1967 between ECE countries and overseas countries which export apples and pears to Europe. It was expected that this meeting will take place in mid-June 1967. It was felt that an agreement between these countries would facilitate the development of a world-wide standard. The delegations of Australia and New Zealand, which had previously expressed particular interest in the question of world-wide standards for certain fresh fruits and vegetables, expressed themselves as being in agreement with the manner in which the Working Party had decided to approach the problem. The delegation of the United States expressed doubts upon the practicability of attempting to develop world-wide grade standards for fresh fruits and vegetables. The working documents for the Geneva meeting would be the existing European standard for apples and pears (AGRI/WP.1/EUR STAN.1), together with comments thereon from the overseas countries which export apples and pears to Europe. Such comments should be sent to the Director, FAO/ECE Agriculture Division, Palais des Nations, Geneva, by 28 February 1967.
74. The following standards were submitted at Step 5 of the Procedure: the General Principles of Food Hygiene and the Code of Hygienic Practice for Canned Fruits, Vegetables and Related Products. After considerable discussion, the Commission agreed to send these standards forward to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Standards, but requested the Committee to indicate clearly which were the advisory parts and which were the mandatory parts of these standards. The Commission was of the opinion that in practice most of the provisions in these standards were advisory. A number of delegations objected to the phrasing in the Introduction to the General Principles of Food Hygiene, in particular the notion expressed in paragraph 5 of that document, and it was decided that the Introduction should not be considered as part of the standard and that this decision should be made clear in a covering letter when the document is sent out to governments for comment.
75. The following standards were submitted at Step 5 of the Procedure:
In presenting these standards, the delegation of the United States of America proposed that they be advanced under Step 6 for comments by governments, but noted that there should be a specific request to the Committee that, at Step 7, these standards should be considered by the Committee in the light of the discussion of the meaning of acceptance of standards (see paragraph 19) in the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius. In this connection the delegation of the United States stated that there were requirements in these standards which would have to be carefully re-examined in the light of the proposed definition of full acceptance which was being sent to governments for comment. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany thought that a distinction should be made between basic and composit ‘ready to eat’ products; this would facilitate the acceptance of standards by countries with various types of regulations in this field. The Commission recommended that these standards should be carefully examined by the Committee and governments were requested to comment fully paragraph by paragraph on the standards.
76. The Commission agreed to send the lactose standard forward to Step 6 of the Commission's Procedure for the Elaboration of Standards and drew the attention of governments to the fact that a document on this topic had already been sent to them in advance of the current session in anticipation of the decision of the Commission, in order that their comments on this standard might be sent to the Chairman of the Committee as soon as possible. Comments were requested by 31 January 1967. The Secretariat was requested to point out in a covering note that previously there had been two standards, one for pharmaceutical lactose and another for commercial lactose. Lactose used exclusively for pharmaceutical purposes does not come within the scope of the Codex Alimentarius. There was also the problem whether both mono-hydrate and anhydrous forms were covered satisfactorily by this standard. The attention of governments would also be drawn to the change in the additional note on heavy metals from which the words “as technologically suitable” had been deleted. The limits put forward were those which, the Committee had been informed, did occur in the product as manufactured.
77. The representative of WHO drew the attention of the Commission to the fact that lactose was almost exclusively consumed by very young children. The Commission noted that the levels of impurities in this product, such as arsenic and lead, were being specially examined by the Codex Committee on Food Additives.
78. The Commission agreed to advance this standard in the Commission's Procedure for the Elaboration of Standards to Step 6. There was considerable discussion on the representation by the International Federation of Margarine Associations that paragraph 6.3 of the standard was discriminatory and it was eventually agreed to amend that paragraph to read as follows:
“[6.3 Margarine shall not be described or designated on any label or any labelling by words or pictorial device or be presented in such a manner as to refer to or be suggestive of milk, butter, other milk products or other dairy term, if likely to lead the purchaser or consumer to suppose that the product is butter or any other milk product, or any other product of which milk or any milk product forms an essential part.]”
It was further agreed that the draft standard for margarine including the amended text of paragraph 6.3 in square brackets should be sent to governments for comment. A number of delegations suggested that paragraph 6.3 could be omitted from the standard for margarine as a similar provision of a general nature could be included in the general standard for food labelling to be developed by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling. The Commission requested that the attention of governments be drawn to the need to comment on this general issue both in connection with the standard for margarine and the general standard for food labelling. Governments were requested to comment specifically on paragraph 6.3. The delegation of Denmark drew the attention of the Commission to the risk inherent in this procedure that some countries might adopt the standard for margarine without paragraph 6.3 and if these countries did not adopt the general standard for food labelling then there would be no provision such as paragraph 6.3 applicable to margarine.
79. Questions were also raised by a number of delegations on various aspects of the draft standard and in particular the number of food additives proposed. There was also considerable discussion on the limitation proposed in the standard for the addition of milk fat. A number of delegations were opposed to any addition of milk fat to margarine; a number of other delegations considered that there should be no limitation placed on the addition of milk fat to margarine, while a number of other delegations thought that it should be permitted to add milk fat to margarine provided that there was a limitation on the amount. The delegations of New Zealand and Denmark registered their objection to advancing this standard to Step 6 on the grounds that the standard should be given further consideration by the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils before being sent to governments for comment.
80. The Commission received from the Secretariat a report on the position with regard to the standardization of bananas and noted the relevant parts of the Report of the First Session of the FAO Study Group on Bananas which was held in March/April 1966 in Rome.
81. The Study Group had been informed that the Codex Alimentarius Commission of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program had already considered the problem of the elaboration of standards for bananas but had decided to defer any action until the views of the Study Group had become known. The Commission had, however, stressed that if such work were undertaken, it should be done on a world-wide basis taking into account the substantial interests of both producing and importing countries.
82. The Study Group was informed that standards for fresh fruit generally dealt with such requirements as colour, size (circumference), weight, degree of maturity, freedom from bruises and diseases, packaging, labelling, marking, etc., which would identify the product in such a way that reference to a standard would help sellers and buyers to reach a common understanding.
83. The question had been raised at the session of the Study Group whether the new marketing techniques were sufficiently advanced to enable a meaningful and technically sound standard to be prepared which would be acceptable to all parties interested in the international trade of bananas. The Study Group had concluded that it was still too early to reach a decision but that the FAO Secretariat should prepare a document in cooperation with the Codex Alimentarius Secretariat on the issues involved in drawing up an international banana standard and endeavour to assemble available data on the subject. This material should be presented to the next session of the Study Group, which would review the future course of action. The Secretariat indicated that it would keep the Codex Alimentarius Commission fully informed of any decisions taken by the FAO Study Group regarding proposals for the elaboration of standards for bananas. The delegation of Ghana, drawing attention to the economic significance of banana exports for certain tropical countries, stressed the need for elaborating an acceptable international standard for this commodity, as soon as possible. The Commission agreed that the Secretariat should cooperate with the Secretariat of the Banana Study Group in drafting a paper on the issues involved in drawing up an international standard for bananas and should keep the Commission informed of the progress made.
84. The Commission considered proposals submitted by the delegation of Poland, containing a general standard for edible fungi and a draft standard for Chanterelle (Cantharellus cibarius). The Commission agreed that these draft proposals should be sent to governments for comment. Comments on the general standard and the standard for Chanterelle should be sent to the Polish Codex Contact Point with a copy to the Secretariat of the Commission, FAO, Rome, not later than the end of February 1967. The Commission was also informed that a provisional draft standard for dried edible fungi had not as yet been prepared but would be available shortly. It was agreed that at its next session the Commission would decide whether the draft general standard for edible fungi should be developed on a regional or world-wide basis. The standard for Chanterelle would of necessity have to be developed as a regional standard.
85. The Commission received a report on the subject of edible ices and, at the suggestion of the Swedish delegation which had indicated the willingness of the Government of Sweden to assume responsibility for a Codex Committee on these products, agreed to postpone until the next session of the Commission a decision on whether to establish a committee for these products. In order to reach this decision the paper on this topic which had been presented by the delegation of Sweden to the Third Session of the Coordinating Committee for Europe would be sent to governments, for information along with data on international trade in these products, to be assembled by the delegation of Sweden. The delegate of Denmark placed on the record his Government's objections to the suggestions contained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the Report of the Ninth Session of the Joint FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products as to how standards for edible ices should be elaborated. In the view of the Danish Government the abovementioned suggestions were incompatible with the special status granted the FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products.
86. The Commission had before it a paper on the metrological aspects of the Codex standards, presented by the Cuban delegation. The Commission decided that this paper should be examined by the Executive Committee at its next session, which should make recommendations on this matter to the Commission.
87. The Commission noted that the new working arrangements for the two Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Groups of Experts ( (a) Fruit Juices and (b) Quick (Deep) Frozen Foods) provided for the sending of draft standards at an appropriate stage of development to governments for comments between sessions, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission. The Commission also noted the steps taken by the ECE in regard to the request of the Commission that ECE consider how best to approach the problem of establishing world-wide standards for the limited number of fresh fruits and vegetables moving in world trade. These steps are described in the paragraph relating to fresh fruits and vegetables.
88. The Commission was informed by the Danish delegation that the Danish plastic industry had requested that high priority be given by the Codex Committee on Food Additives to the problem of the migration of chemicals into food. The Commission asked the Secretariat to look into this subject.
89. The Fifth Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission would be held in January 1968. The place of meeting was yet to be determined by the Directors-General but would, subject to the availability of accommodation, probably be in Geneva, in either the WHO Headquarters or the Palais des Nations.
