9. The Commission received reports concerning the Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Sixth Sessions of the Executive Committee, held in Geneva from 10 to 13 July 1979 and in Rome on 26 and 27 November 1979. The reports of these two Sessions were contained in ALINORM 79/3 and ALINORM 79/4. In introducing and reviewing the reports, the Chairman indicated that all of the substantive items considered by the Executive Committee would be dealt with by the Commission under the agenda items of the Commission relating to the matters concerned.
10. The Commission had before it a list of Members of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The membership is set out below. The Commission noted that since its last Session one more country - Botswana - had become a Member of the Commission, bringing the current membership to 117 countries. The delegation of India expressed the hope that the Secretariat would get in touch with those countries which had not yet become Members of the Commission and urge them to become Members. The Commission endorsed this suggestion.
AFRICA
ASIA
EUROPE
LATIN AMERICA
NORTH AMERICA
SOUTH-WEST PACIFIC
11. The Commission had before it a full list of Recommended Codex Standards and Codex Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues sent to Governments for acceptance (ALINORM 79/5, Appendix). The Commission also had before it a revised edition of the Summary of Acceptances of Recommended Codex Standards and Codex Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues (CAC/ACCEPTANCES/Rev.1). The Summary contained full details concerning acceptances up to 30 October 1978. The data in the Summary were further updated by document ALINORM 79/5, which contained information on further acceptances from Argentina, Bahamas, Egypt, Jordan, United Kingdom and the USA. This information was further supplemented by the Secretariat, which informed the Commission verbally of additional notifications, which had come to hand, of acceptances or of action contemplated which would probably result in acceptances. These notifications had been received from Canada, Cyprus, Hungary, New Zealand, Norway and the USA.
12. Canada had notified acceptance of many of the Recommended Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues. Cyprus had notified Target Acceptance of the Recommended Standards for Canned Mandar in Oranges, Canned Tomatoes, Canned Peaches and Canned Pineapple. Cyprus had also notified Target Acceptance of many of the Recommended Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues contained in the publication CAC/RS 65-1974, with the intention, in time, of passing to Full Acceptance. Hungary had notified acceptance of certain milk product standards and associated reference methods. New Zealand had recently amended its Food and Drug Regulations. These Regulations now permit the importation of any food which contains proportions of pesticides not greater than those specified in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Series of Recommended International Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues, CAC/RS 65, 71 and 100.
13. Norway indicated that a White Paper on the work of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme and its significance for Norway had been put before the Norwegian Parliament. The Norwegian Parliament had endorsed the conclusions set out in the White Paper, namely that (a) achieving the purposes of the Codex Alimentarius would be of great benefit to all concerned, (b) the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission were of great significance for Norway and should be fully supported, and (c) the authorities concerned in Norway should take the appropriate steps to consider the Recommended Codex Standards for formal acceptance. In this latter connection, several working groups had been set up in Norway, and Norway hoped that formal acceptance of many of the Codex standards, in one form or another, would soon be forthcoming. The USA indicated that all of the Recommended Codex Standards, were being considered.
14. During the discussion which followed the presentation of the above documents and information, several delegations provided the Commission with additional information on the position with regard to acceptances in their countries. The delegation of Kenya indicated that Kenya had decided to accept most of the Recommended Codex Standards. Some of them had already been incorporated in Kenya legislation and other Codex Standards were being examined. The official position of Kenya with regard to the Codex Standards would be communicated to the Secretariat in due course. The delegation of the USA indicated that a further communication concerning acceptances was en route to the Secretariat. This communication covered the Recommended General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods and several Codex Commodity standards. The US delegation stated that the USA would not be able to accept a number of the Codex standards for fats and oils, but that products in conformity with the Codex standards for the products concerned would be permitted to enter the USA.
15. The delegation of Senegal informed the Commission about action being taken and studies under way in Senegal with a view to acceptance of some of the Recommended Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues. The delegation of Argentina indicated that in Argentina the Recommended Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues were being studied with a view to giving acceptance as soon as possible. The study covered the residues of 38 pesticides and some 400 food products.
16. The delegation of Algeria stressed the importance of food control, including adequate training of inspection and laboratory staff. Algeria hoped to be able to give acceptance in due course to most of the Codex standards. The United Kingdom referred to its position, as set forth in ALINORM 79/5, in relation to its notification of Target Acceptance of many of the Recommended Codex Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues. From 1 July 1979, Target Acceptance had been converted to Limited Acceptance. The delegation of the UK indicated that, as a Member of the European Economic Community, it might be necessary for the UK to modify its position on acceptances.
17. The delegation of New Zealand indicated that New Zealand would shortly be notifying acceptances in respect of the Recommended Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues. Also the food law in New Zealand was being reviewed in the light of Codex standards and recommendations. The delegation of Tanzania indicated that the Codex standards were being examined in Tanzania and that, in particular, they would try and use the Codex Standards for fats and oils. The delegation of Tanzania stressed the importance of having assistance from FAO and WHO in the field of food control.
18. The delegation of India stated that it would indeed facilitate international trade if importing countries which, for their own internal reasons, did not feel able to accept a given Codex standard, would notify the Secretariat that products complying with the Codex standard would be allowed entry. India had a particular difficulty in this respect, because Indian legislation made no distinction between products for home consumption and products for import. Thus products for import would have to comply with Indian regulations. The delegation of India thought that some of the provisions of Codex standards in the field of hygiene and contaminants were not really practicable. India would soon communicate its views to the Secretariat.
19. The delegation of Uruguay indicated that it was awaiting the results of Codex regional work in Latin America before communicating its position on acceptances to the Secretariat. The delegation added that Uruguay exercised strict control over foods and that the Codex recommendations were being examined. The delegation of Finland indicated that Codex work was being closely followed there and that the Codex standards had a big significance on food standards work in Finland. Finland hoped soon to be able to supply a progress report on this matter to the Secretariat.
20. The observer from the European Economic Community indicated that Codex work was very closely followed by the EEC, and that the Codex standards had a significant influence on the content of the Community standards. The EEC had given acceptance with Specified Deviations to a number of the Codex standards for sugar and hoped soon to be able to communicate its position concerning the Codex standards for fruit juices and cocoa products and chocolate. The observer from the EEC expressed interest in the view expressed by the Executive Committee, at its 25th session, that it would be a step forward if countries which could not formally accept a Codex standard would be prepared to allow a product in conformity with the Codex standard to gain entry. He agreed with the Codex Committee on General Principles that this was a positive line of action and indicated that it was one which the EEC would probably follow. Information on the work of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) and its interest in the Codex standards and recommendations was also conveyed to the Commission.
21. The Commission agreed that the influence of Codex standards and recommendations was steadily increasing throughout the world, and that considerable progress concerning acceptances had been achieved since the Commission's Twelfth Session. The increasing interest in both developing and developed countries in the work and recommendations of the Commission was evident from progress reports made to-date and from statements made at the current session. The Commission endorsed the recommendations of the Executive Committee at its Twenty-Fifth Session on the subject of acceptances and particularly emphasized the importance, in the interest of facilitating international trade, of permitting entry of products in conformity with Codex standards, in cases where acceptance could not be given. The Commission agreed that there should be a regular item on the agendas of Codex Commodity Committees and, where appropriate, Codex General Subject Committees, covering review of acceptances of standards elaborated by each Committee, and that acceptances of standards should also be reviewed at the regional level by Codex Coordinating Committees.
22. The Commission stressed the need for the Codex Secretariat to continue to seek more acceptances of the Codex standards and Codex maximum limits for pesticide residues from governments, to intensify its “drive” on acceptances in this regard, and to assist Members of the Commission in matters concerning the use and application of the Commission's Procedure for the Acceptance of Standards.
23. The Commission had before it ALINORM 79/6 and Addendum. The Commission noted that most of the information contained in ALINORM 79/6 had been put before and considered by the Executive Committee at its Twenty-Fifth Session in Geneva in July 1979. The additional information concerning estimated expenditure in 1979, as contained in ALINORM 79/6, Addendum, and in ALINORM 79/4 para. 3, had been considered by the Executive Committee at its Twenty-Sixth Session in Rome on 26 and 27 November 1979.
24. In introducing the above documents, the Chief of the FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme drew the Commission's attention to the discussions on this topic which had taken place at the Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Sixth Sessions of the Executive Committee (ALINORM 79/3, paras 53–59 and ALINORM 79/4, paras 3–6). He indicated that there would be a deficit in the current biennium. The deficit, which would be principally on documents (translation and printing), was mainly attributable to the fact that two sessions of the Commission had been provided for in the 1978/79 biennium, as against one session in the 1976/77 biennium. However, it was expected that this situation would right itself in the 1980/81 biennium, when in accordance with the eighteen month cycle of sessions established by the Commission at its Eleventh Session, only one session of the Commission would be held.
25. The Commission noted that the proposed budget for the Programme for 1980/81, as set forth in para. 6 of ALINORM 79/6, had been approved by both the FAO Conference and the World Health Assembly. WHO had provided for a contribution of $340,000 to the joint budget of the Programme for 1980/81. Revised estimates of cost increases relating to the Rome location of the Joint Office had since indicated that this contribution would need to be raised to $371,000. The Commission was informed that WHO would be endeavouring to provide the additional amount of $31,000 during the biennium from savings. The Commission was further informed that the number of meetings of Codex Committees as proposed by the Commission at its Twelfth Session had also been approved by the FAO Conference. In this connection, however, the professional staff of the Joint Office had, after very careful review of its increasing workload, concluded that it could not satisfactorily service all these sessions. A reduced number of Codex meetings was therefore proposed for 1980/81, details of which were set out in document ALINORM 79/32, for consideration by the Commission.
26. The Commission was informed of the views of the FAO Programme Committee on the current cost sharing arrangements between FAO and WHO regarding the joint items of expenditure of the FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, namely personal services (salaries and common staff costs), meetings, consultants, duty travel and external printing and translation. The Executive Committee, at its Twenty-Fifth Session, had requested that WHO should give very sympathetic consideration to this matter, with a view to increasing WHO's contribution towards the costs of the joint budget items for 1982/83.
27. The delegation of the USA drew the attention of the Commission to various discussions in the Executive Committee relating to programme of work and budgetary matters and also recalled the discussions which had taken place at the Eleventh and Twelfth Sessions of the Commission on these matters. In particular, the delegation emphasized the great care which had been taken by the Commission at its last session to determine its priorities regarding which Committees should meet and the frequency of meetings. In this connection, the delegation felt strongly that the Codex Committees on Food Additives and Pesticide Residues should continue to meet annually, because of their value to all Members of the Commission and the importance of their work to other Codex Committees. The delegation of the USA drew attention to the discussions in the Executive Committee on several occasions concerning the austere nature of the budget of the Programme and the increasing workload falling on the staff of the Programme. The Commission at its last session and the Executive Committee at several sessions had expressed concern about the diminution over the years of the professional staff of the Joint Office of the Programme, against a background of expanding Codex work, especially in the General Subject and Regional Coordinating Committees, to which all Members of the Commission attached high priority and importance.
28. The delegation of the USA considered that all the staff paid for by both FAO and WHO, which was a Joint FAO/WHO Secretariat, should resume the earlier practice of reporting directly and administratively to the Commission and the Executive Committee on details of any problems relating to staffing, workload and operation of the Programme. The delegation further stated that the Commission and Executive Committee should monitor the workload of the Secretariat, to ensure that its efforts to service the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its subsidiary bodies were not being diverted in any way from its task. Specifically, the delegation considered that the Chief of the FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, who had been engaged on other duties, should report regularly on the above matters to the Chairman of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The delegation further considered it was essential, in view of possible increased funding by WHO and the reorientation and workload of the Programme, that no member of the Codex Secretariat, including the Chief of the Programme, should be engaged in non-Codex work, especially as the FAO Programme Committee had requested FAO to seek an increased share of funds from WHO towards the joint costs of the Programme.
29. The matters referred to by the delegation of the USA gave rise to a general discussion on the role and duties of the staff and funding of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. All delegations agreed that the staff of the Programme should be engaged wholly on Codex work, more especially at a time when the workload was increasing. One delegation made the point that any non-Codex work which the staff of the Programme might be called upon to do should, even though it might be very important work, be done by other FAO staff and be paid out of funds other than Codex funds. Many delegations considered that a report on the activities of the staff of the Programme should be made to the Commission.
30. Several delegations expressed regret that the proposed timetable of Codex meetings in 1981 did not list meetings of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues and indicated that they would wish to examine this matter further under the appropriate agenda item. One delegation thought that some consideration should be given to phasing out certain Codex Committees which were approaching the end of their current assignments. Another delegation considered that there should be an overall increase in the allocation of funds from FAO and WHO to Codex work. The delegation further suggested that in the future the budget presentation of the Programme should contain an indication as to what percentage of the budgets of FAO and WHO was attributable to the Codex budget.
31. Several delegations drew attention to the very substantial contributions to the Programme made by those Governments which host Codex Committees. One delegation referred to paragraph 7 of ALINORM 79/6, in which it was indicated that there had been a small reduction in the budget of the Programme for 1980/81 as compared with 1978/79, in order to enable more funds to be made available for food control. This delegation stated that this matter should have been referred to the Commission for consideration. The need to provide more documentation in the Spanish language was mentioned by another delegation.
32. Concerning the question of the WHO contribution to the Programme, the Commission agreed that WHO should be requested to assume a higher share of the joint budget of the Programme for the 1982/83 biennium. In this connection, the WHO representative indicated that this request would be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities of WHO. The WHO representative added that in considering a request for increased funds WHO would want to be reassured that all of the members of the staff of the Programme paid for by FAO and WHO, including the Chief of the Programme, were working full time on the activities of the Programme.
33. In response to several inquiries concerning the duties of the Head of the Joint Secretariat and its professional staff, the Commission was informed that in 1971 the Joint FAO/WHO staff in Rome consisted of 7 professional officers, including the Chief of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, who functioned full time as Head of the Codex Secretariat. For a period of two years (1977 and 1978) the Joint FAO/WHO staff had stood at 5 professional officers, when the Chief of the Programme was temporarily Officer-in-Charge of the Food Policy and Nutrition Division. The professional staff of the Programme now stood at 6 professional officers, including the Chief of the Programme, whose duties did not enable him to devote full time to Codex work.
34. In view of the reorientation and expanding nature of the Commission's activities as well as the need to secure increased support from WHO, the Commission concluded that the Chief of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme should be engaged solely on Codex work and that he should report on the activities of the Joint FAO/WHO staff servicing the Programme at each session of the Commission and Executive Committee and also every six months to the Chairman of the Commission.
