138. The Commission considered standards at Step 5 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards.
139. The Commission considered the following:
As regards the General Standard, the Commission noted that some delegations in the Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on the Standardization of Quick (Deep) Frozen Foods had taken the view that the General Standard should be mandatory in its entirety, that others had taken the view that it should be regarded as a code of practice and thus advisory, and that still others considered that it should be part mandatory and part advisory. The Commission agreed with the Joint Group of Experts that governments should be asked to state in their comments on the General Standard the reasons why they would consider the entire standard or individual paragraphs in it mandatory or advisory. Pending an examination of these comments by the Joint Group of Experts, the Commission considered that it would be premature to pronounce on the status to be ascribed to the General Standard. While the Commission decided to advance the General Standard to the next step in the Procedure, it noted that it would be always open to it to hold the standard at Step 8 in the Procedure or to return it for further work at any appropriate previous step in the Procedure, should this be considered necessary.
140. The Commission noted that the General Standard covered only quick (deep) frozen foods as distinct from other kinds of frozen foods and that it would be desirable for the scope of the standard to be more clearly defined. The Commission also deferred deciding on how to deal with products which would not meet the minimum temperature requirements laid down in the General Standard, pending consideration of government comments on the General Standard by the Joint Group of Experts.
141. The Commission decided that the Standards for Quick (Deep) Frozen Strawberries and Peas should be advanced to Step 6 in the Procedure for the Elaboration of Standards.
142. The Commission examined a list of pesticide residues in raw grain and flour at Step 5 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards. Some delegations were of the opinion that the proposed levels for some of the pesticide residues were higher than permitted in their countries. The Secretariat drew the Commission's attention to the fact that in the case of methyl bromide and ethylene dibromide, the tolerances were for inorganic bromide and not for the unhydrolysed compounds.
143. The delegation of Australia proposed that Steps 6, 7 and 8 of the Procedure should be omitted. Other delegations pointed out that as other tolerances were being proposed by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues for residues of these pesticides in other foods, the total food load from all sources would need to be taken into consideration. The Commission decided not to omit Steps 6, 7, and 8 in view of the fact that the matter was not entirely uncontroversial.
144. The Commission adopted the following list of tolerances for pesticide residues at Step 5 of the Procedure and decided that it should be sent to governments for comment at Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards.
For raw grain
| - Malathion | 8 ppm | |
| - Hydrogen cyanide | 75 ppm | |
| - Methyl bromide | 50 ppm | inorganic bromide determined and expressed as total bromide from all sources |
| Ethylene dibromide |
For flour
| - Hydrogen cyanide | 6 ppm |
The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany reserved its position regarding the tolerance proposed for hydrogen cyanide on raw grain.
145. The Commission examined a list of flour treatment agents at Step 5 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards. During the discussion, the delegation of Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Poland and Switzerland indicated that there was no technological need for most of these agents in the treatment of flour. In connection with benzoyl peroxide, chlorine dioxide and potassium bromate, the Commission was of the opinion that more information was needed on the application of these flour treatment agents in order to be able to specify the “special purpose” for which they were intended. The Austrian delegation pointed out that a finite tolerance for sulphur-dioxide was needed since trace amounts of this substance would probably be found in the baked product manufactured from flour treated with sulphurdioxide, in view of the high sensitivity of modern analytical methods. Even if no residues of sulphur-dioxide were found in the baked product, the possibility always existed of the formation of interaction products between the treatment agent and flour.
146. The Commission noted that differing food habits in the various countries made it necessary for some countries to use these flour treatment agents and that the acceptance of such a list did not mean that these additives would have to be used.
147. The Commission adopted the following list of flour treatment agents and decided that it should be sent to governments for comment at Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Standards:
| - Ascorbic acid | 0 to 200 ppm | |
| - Azodicarbonamide | 0 to 45 ppm | |
| - Benzoyl peroxide | 0 to 40 ppm | 40 to 75 for special purposes (e.g. certain biscuit flours) |
| - Chlorine dioxide | 0 to 30 ppm | 30 to 75 for special purposes (e.g. certain biscuit flours) |
| - Potassium bromate | 0 to 20 ppm | 20 to 75 for special purposes (e.g. certain biscuit flours) |
| - Sulphur dioxide | The level of treatment of flour for the manufacture of biscuits should be in conformity with good technological practice, leaving no residue of sulphur dioxide in the final product. | |
148. The Commission considered the above Standard and decided to advance it to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards. During the discussion on this item a number of countries referred to the points in the General Standard which they thought would still need further consideration. Among these were the question of the listing of ingredients in general and, in particular, the listing in standardized products for which, it was suggested, an exception should be permitted. Some countries queried the provisions of the standard requiring declaration of net content on the label. It was also suggested that it would be helpful if labels should, in addition to the units of measurement used in the producing country, also show the measurements in S.I. Units. The delegation of Japan informed the Commission that only the declaration of S.I. Units was allowed in their country. The Commission noted that government comments were being sought on these points and that they would be discussed again at the next session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling.
149. The Commission considered the Standards for Canned Asparagus and Canned Pineapple. The Commission noted that in the Standard for Canned Asparagus, stannous chloride had not been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives and this should be clearly stated in the Standard when it was sent to governments at Step 6.
150. The delegation of Cuba drew attention to the fact that, in the Standard for Canned Pineapples, uniformity of size was based on weight instead of some appropriate measure of size such as diameter.
151. The Commission decided to advance both Standards to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards.
152. The Commission considered the Standard for Canned Pacific Salmon and advanced it to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards. The Chairman of the Committee stated that it had not yet been possible to find an appropriate common name for the species “oncorhynchus masou” which had been included within the scope of the Standard on the request of Japan. The delegation of Japan informed the Commission that they would undertake further consultations with the interested countries and would be submitting proposals regarding the common name of this species to the Committee. The Commission stated that the temperature provisions of the Standard should be expressed in Celsius rather than in Fahrenheit.
153. The Commission examined the General Standard for Edible Fats and Oils and individual Standards for Soya Bean Oil, Arachis Oil, Cottonseed Oil, Sunflower Oil, Rapeseed Oil, Maize Oil, Sesameseed Oil, Safflowerseed Oil, Lard, Rendered Pork Fat, Premier Jus, Edible Tallow. The Commission decided to advance all the standards to Step 6 of the Procedure. It was pointed out to the Commission that the General Standard would apply to all fats and oils which were not covered by specific standards. With regard to the General Standard, it was drawn to the attention of the Commission that under paragraph 1.2 of the English and Spanish texts, the expression “physical procedures” would permit solvent extraction which would be at variance with the intention of the standard in respect of virgin fats and oils.
154. In the opinion of some delegations, there appeared to be no need for separate Standards for Rendered Pork Fat and Lard since these two products could be covered by a single standard. As regards the acid and the peroxide values in the standards for fats and oils, some delegations were of the opinion that these should not be stated at different points of enforcement. The delegation of Portugal made a number of comments on edible fats and oils. As regards the determination of fatty acid composition by gasliquid chromatographic methods, it was pointed out to the Commission that these methods have been included for information and would be examined again by the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils. The Secretariat was requested to make editorial changes to the standards on fats and oils in the light of the adopted Format of Codex Standards.
155. The Commission had before it for consideration at Step 5 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Standards a Standard for White Sugar and a Standard for Powdered (Icing) Sugar. The Committee had concluded that there should be only one White Sugar Standard but in order to meet the principal requirements of the consumers and trade in different countries the standard had been drawn up with two sets of specifications. One set referred to white sugar at a moderately high level; the other to lower grade white sugar which would have to be suitably labelled. The Committee decided to advance the White Sugar Standard with the two sets of specifications to Step 6 and invite government comments, particularly in respect of the name to be given to the two white sugars for which specifications were provided in the standard. During the discussion of the standard, the delegation of Japan informed the Commission that special type of sugar called “korizato” should also be included in the exemption for loss on drying in the standard and that they would provide information and samples on this type for the next meeting of the Committee.
156. The Commission was informed that the Standard for Powdered (Icing) Sugar depended upon the specifications for white sugar, and that the question of the measurement of particle size had still to be clarified. As regards the anti-caking agents in the Standard for Powdered (Icing) Sugar, these had to be referred to the Codex Committee on Food Additives for endorsement.
157. The Commission decided to advance the Powdered (Icing) Sugar Standard to Step 6.
158. The Commission examined 19 Definitions and Standards for Cocoa Products and Chocolate. In respect of cocoa (cacao) beans “merchantable quality”, it was pointed out to the Commission that the Committee had decided that this product should conform to at least Grade Two of the FAO Draft Model Ordinance and Code of Practice for Cocoa Beans. In the opinion of some delegations, there appeared to be no need to include provisions for cocoa beans in the standards for these products. The delegation of Ghana was of the opinion that cocoa beans described in the above Ordinance as ‘-standard merchantable’ were unlikely to be exported but that they were suitable for manufacturing purposes in cocoa bean producing countries, especially for cocoa butter.
159. The delegation of the U.S.A. pointed out that many proprietary cocoa and chocolate products existed and that it would be difficult to elaborate standards for each different formulation. The Commission considered that the standards could not be advanced to Step 5 until they were in the new Codex Format, and that the Committee should consider them in the new Format at its next meeting. It was pointed out to the Commission that a number of very controversial matters of substance still needed to be reconsidered by the Committee as well as the Format and content of standards for these products.
160. The Commission agreed that these standards be sent to governments as they appeared in Appendix 2 of the Report of the Fifth Session of the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate and that comments be sought on the outstanding matters requiring settlement by the Committee. The Secretariat was requested to consider the possibility of bringing the standards into the adopted Format in the light of government comments and submit these to the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate for further consideration at Step 4 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards.
