35. The Commission had before it documents ALINORM 79/7, ALINORM 79/7, Addendum and ALINORM 79/7, Second Addendum. These documents were introduced and reviewed by the Chief of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, who informed the Commission of the practical steps which had been taken since its last session, in order to make the Commission's work more responsive to the needs and concerns of the developing countries. A report had been made on these matters to the Governing Bodies of FAO and WHO. Both Governing Bodies had endorsed the actions which had been taken by the Commission in this area, and the FAO Council had indicated that, in view of the importance of the Commission's work, it wished to follow major policy trends within the Commission.
36. The FAO Conference had also recommended that the Codex Alimentarius Commission should review its procedures for the elaboration of standards, in order to expedite their development. The Executive Committee had considered this matter at its Twenty-Sixth Session and had charged the Secretariat, in collaboration with the Legal Offices of FAO and WHO, to prepare proposals on this matter for consideration at its Twenty-Seventh Session (ALINORM 79/4, paragraph 9).
37. The Commission took note, with satisfaction, of the contents of the reports on the reactions of the various bodies listed above. In particular, the Commission expressed its appreciation of the comments of the FAO Conference at its Twentieth Session. The FAO Conference had, amongst other things, emphasized the importance of the role of the Codex Regional Coordinating Committees in Africa, Asia and Latin America in promoting the health, nutrition and trade interests of the countries of these regions. The Commission agreed that more emphasis needed to be placed on Codex regional work.
38. The delegation of Cuba made a statement concerning this item of the agenda which is contained in Appendix IV to this Report.
39. The Commission, at its Twelfth Session, had amended the procedure for the Elaboration of Worldwide Codex Standards, to provide for comments on the possible economic impact of the international Codex standards. The Commission, at its Thirteenth Session, had before it proposals to introduce the same type of amendments into the Procedure for the Elaboration of Regional Codex Standards and the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues.
40. The Codex Secretariat had submitted proposals in this regard to the Executive Committee at its Twenty-Fifth Session. The Executive Committee had amended the proposals of the Secretariat (ALINORM 79/3, para 62).
41. The Commission had before it at its current session the proposals contained in document ALINORM 79/2. The Commission adopted the proposals which were before it except that, on the advice of the FAO Legal Counsel, it agreed that the proposed addition to Step 5 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Regional Codex Standards should be further amended to read as follows:-
“In taking any decision at this step, the Members of the region concerned will give due consideration to any comments that may be submitted by any of the Members of the Commission regarding the implications which the proposed draft standard or any provisions thereof may have for their economic interests”.
42. The Commission had before it document ALINORM 79/8 which contained three Sections; Section A - Joint FAO/WHO Activities; Section B - Report of FAO Activities; Section C - Report of WHO Activities.
43. In his introductory remarks the FAO representative mentioned that ALINORM 79/8 contained information on activities of FAO and WHO designed to assist Member Countries particularly developing countries, in strengthening food control systems, to enable full utilization of Codex work in protecting consumers, and in developing the food industry and trade. The strong coordination, collaboration, and cooperation between FAO and WHO in joint activities, and in activities primarily resting with one or the other agency was mentioned, and the need was highlighted for development of similar cooperation between food, agriculture and health sectors at the national level in most countries, to enable quicker development of coordinated programmes, in order to meet food quality and safety problems in developed and developing countries.
44. The FAO and WHO representatives mentioned various joint FAO/WHO activities outlined in the paper, and gave the Commission progress reports on meetings of the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1978 and 1979. The Report of the 1978 JMPR meeting and the specifications for identity and purity for the food additives covered in the 1978 and 1979 JECFA meetings had been published and distributed.
45. Progress was also reported on the UNEP-supported Joint FAO/WHO Food and Animal Feed Monitoring Programme. The FAO representative mentioned the work being done on animal feed monitoring assistance, and the WHO representative pointed out that the summary report of data received from participating countries up to 1977 had been published. This latter report was reassuring to WHO since the data submitted indicated that the mean and ninetieth percentile figures for all but one organochlorine pesticide assessed did not exceed the practical residue limits set by FAO/WHO for the various pesticide chemicals included in the survey, and in fact the data indicated a downward trend in these residues in food. FAO/WHO also had released a publication entitled “Guideline for Establishing or Strengthening National Food Contamination Monitoring Programmes”, for use by participating countries in the programme, to assess and strengthen national food contamination monitoring and control programmes.
46. The WHO representative also made mention of the work of the Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated Food, which will next be convened in October 1980 to further consider various aspects of the food irradiation process.
47. With regard to microbiological contaminants and meat hygiene, the WHO representative gave a summary of work done recently in these areas. The third FAO/WHO Working Group on Microbiological Criteria for Foods met in Geneva in February 1979, and the Commission was informed of the views expressed by the Working Group on the usefulness of microbiological criteria for raw meat, poultry, or other raw foods. The Working Group developed “General Principles for the Establishment of Microbiological Criteria in Foods”, for consideration by the Codex Food Hygiene Committee and the Commission, which recommended minimizing microbiological problems in foods by the use of codes of practice, and recommended that microbiological criteria or standards should only be established where there was a definite need, and where they could be effective and practical. On meat hygiene, the WHO representative mentioned that a draft text of an “International Code of Principles for Ante-mortem and Post-mortem Judgement of Slaughter Animals and Meat” had been finalized by a group of experts in October 1979, and would be considered by the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene.
48. In a review of FAO field activities, the FAO representative drew attention to a list of national, regional, or global projects underway in a number of countries. These projects included assistance in strengthening food control infrastructure, food legislation, training food inspectors, chemists, microbiologists, and food control administrators, strengthening laboratory facilities, and assisting in improving control of food contaminants. Among major new initiatives of FAO was a plan to develop Technical Cooperation between Developing Countries (TCDC) in the food control area and an FAO/UNDP Technical Consultation between Developing Countries of the Asia and Pacific Regions, held in September 1979 was mentioned as a first step. The Consultation drew up an action plan of how the countries of the Region could establish and carry out food control training, advisory and assistance services, and operate an information collection and dissemination service utilizing existing expertise and institutions in the Region. Also mentioned were plans of FAO to convene National Food Control Strategy Workshops in countries of different Regions to assist in the development of coherent, inter-ministerial plans for better food control infrastructure.
49. The FAO representative also mentioned FAO's programme currently carried out to develop a series of publications on food control, complementary to the already published Guidelines for Establishing an Effective National Food Control System, FAO Food Control Series No.1. In this series is an inspection manual, developed jointly with WHO and UNEP; a chemical manual with selected chemical methods for food control, developed by FAO with funding assistance from the Government of Sweden; a microbiological manual developed by FAO based on its experience in an FAO/UNEP project in East Africa, and an FAO developed publication on Guidelines for Quality Control of Foods for Export.
50. In the area of food contaminant control, the work of FAO in an FAO/UNDP/African Groundnut Council project was mentioned including various aflatoxin prevention, detoxification, and personnel training components of this six-country project (Gambia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan). A training course for Francophone countries for analysis and control of mycotoxins in food, held in Tunisia, was also mentioned. In addition to these project activities, the FAO representative mentioned surveys of food contamination facilities in Latin America and West Africa that had been carried out, which would lead to further training programmes, a West African food control and food contamination centre. He also mentioned Norwegian financed FAO projects being carried out in the area of food contamination studies in India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The Commission was also informed of a six-month training course carried out with UNEP funding at the Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysore, India, where over 30 fellows, from about 25 countries had been trained over the past few years. Further courses of this type would be carried out if additional funding support could be located.
51. The FAO representative brought to the attention of the Commission a current project between FAO, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, to provide training and technological studies in food irradiation with various training activities already completed or underway.
52. The activities of FAO in the UN-wide effort to improve consumer protection activities of the UN and the FAO Programmes on Prevention of Food Losses and Food Security were called to the attention of the Commission.
53. The WHO representative gave the Commission details of the WHO Food Safety Programme and stated that a review of the food safety activities of each WHO Member State had been completed to assist in planning future activities. At WHO Headquarters, a post had been created and filled by a scientist whose functions were to assist in the planning and implementation of activities in sanitary food protection. In field projects, WHO mentioned a fungal contamination control and human health project underway in Swaziland, with UNEP collaboration, and drew attention to a list of projects appended to ALINORM 79/8.
54. In the area of food microbiology and related diseases, WHO called attention to an international surveillance programme on foodborne diseases being set up within the WHO European Region to its food virology data bank established to provide information on foodborne viral diseases and to the newly established large-scale programme on control of diarrheal diseases. WHO continued to coordinate post-graduate training in the area of food microbiology for students from developing countries. Two courses were held in Europe, and one four weeks course in India for India and neighbouring countries. In accordance with World Health Assembly decisions, WHO was extending its network of centres for zoonoses and related foodborne diseases. One such centre had recently been established in Athens, Greece, to serve the Mediterranean area and others were being planned.
55. In opening this item for discussion, the Chairman thanked the representatives of FAO and WHO for the information given on FAO/WHO activities complementary to the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and noted with satisfaction the wide range of activities on food control which would help in solving many food related problems of developing and developed countries.
56. In discussing this item, a large number of delegations expressed their general satisfaction with the work of FAO and WHO in assisting Member Countries in the food control area and felt that the FAO/WHO cooperation in this area was a good example of inter-agency cooperation leading to practical work at the country level. A number of delegations from developed and developing countries mentioned the great importance that they attached to the work of the JMPR and JECFA and expressed their strong hopes that these committees would continue to provide guidance to Member Countries in the area of pesticides, pesticide residues in foods and food additives. The delegation of Kenya pointed out, in particular, that developing countries appreciated the high costs involved in testing food additives and pesticides for safety and purity and that developing countries could not afford to carry out such tests, which would in any case be duplicative and wasteful.
57. In commenting on food control support from FAO and WHO, a number of delegations expressed their satisfaction with efforts underway at present and expressed the wish that these be stepped up, particularly by WHO at the country level. The delegations of Kenya and Nigeria called attention to current or recently completed FAO projects that had helped in the training of food control personnel, in producing coherent and concise food regulations, and in the general overall strengthening of food control infrastructure. The need for this infrastructure for consumer protection, control of food imports, locally produced and consumed foods and exports was mentioned, along with the need for developing countries to produce adequate food control systems, to enable better consumer protection and trade promotion as well as utilization of Codex work. The delegation of Kenya also mentioned its multi-disciplinary and multi-agency approach to solve food control problems.
58. With regard to the WHO Food Safety and Chemical Safety programmes, the delegation of Nigeria stated that these programmes must be carefully administered to ensure that they covered the entire world, different ecological situations, etc. It was noted that activities in West Africa needed to be increased by WHO and that some pending requests for assistance in control of foodborne disease should be met. With regard to both programmes, it was pointed out that there was an increasing number of non-medical people involved in such activities at the developing country level and that WHO should develop some innovative approaches to reach the people and agencies dealing with food control in developing countries, outside of the current communication channels, through medical personnel. The delegations of Nigeria and Senegal also expressed the wish that the countries of West Africa should all be treated equally and without attention to existing language differences and called attention to current activities of ECOWAS as a good example of this.
59. Several delegations commented on the need for more training facilities for food control personnel and the idea of a unified approach in control of food microbiological, chemical and economic problems was supported. Questions were posed concerning the schedule for establishing a training centre for West Africa and on the distribution of documents, reports and publications of FAO and WHO related to various food control topics. A few delegations asked for good coordination of food control efforts between FAO and WHO at the developing country level to prevent duplication of effort and other problems.
60. In response to the various points and questions raised, the representative of FAO assured the Commission that FAO had made provision for annual meetings of JECFA and JMPR during its next fiscal biennium (1980/81). The Commission was assured that all JECFA and JMPR documents were forwarded to Codex Contact Points on a regular basis, as they became available, and that other publications discussed under this item from FAO and WHO would be sent to Codex Contact Points. The FAO and WHO representatives expressed their thanks to developed countries which graciously received FAO and WHO fellows and visiting scientists from developing countries, in cooperation with the fellowship programmes of FAO and WHO. With regard to avoiding duplication of efforts at the developing country level, it was pointed out that the United Nations system was represented by the United Nations Development Resident Representative in all developing countries and that in most developing countries there were FAO and WHO Country Representatives. Every effort was made by these Representatives to assure coordinated assistance to member governments and to avoid any duplication. In response to the question raised about a training centre for West Africa, the FAO representative stated that UNEP had indicated its willingness to fund some of the activities proposed, but that additional funding support was still being sought. The WHO representative stated that additional funding for assisting participating developing countries in the FAO/WHO Food and Animal Feed Contamination Monitoring Programme to obtain equipment had not become available.
61. In summing up, the Commission took note of the strong wish of Member Countries of the Commission that the JMPR and JECFA continue their work. The Commission noted the wishes and constructive criticisms expressed by the developing country members and hoped that FAO and WHO would take action, insofar as possible, to meet these. The Commission listened with great interest to the expose on FAO and WHO activities in the food control area and expressed general satisfaction with these activities.
62. The Commission was provided with the WHO document A 32/12 which had been presented to the Thirty-Second World Health Assembly dealing with the International Programme on Chemical Safety. At the invitation of the Executive Committee, Dr. V.B. Vouk, Manager, Environmental Health Criteria and Standards Unit (HCS) and Chief, Central Unit, International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), WHO, was present and introduced this item.
63. It was pointed out that the principal objectives of this new international programme which had been initiated in 1977 and endorsed again in May 1979 by the World Health Assembly were as follows:
to carry out and disseminate evaluations of the effects of chemicals on human health and on the quality of the environment;
to develop guidelines on exposure limits such as acceptable daily intakes and maximum permissible or desirable levels in air, water and food, and in the working environment, for all types of chemicals;
to develop guidelines on appropriate methods for toxicity testing, epidemiological and clinical studies, and risk and hazard identification, quantification and evaluation;
to coordinate laboratory testing and epidemiological studies where international approach is appropriate; and promote research on dose-response relations and on mechanisms of biological actions of chemicals;
to develop information for coping with chemical accidents and promote effective international cooperation in this field; promote technical cooperation with respect to specific issues concerning control of toxic substances in Member States; and promote training and development of manpower.
64. Dr. Vouk then proceeded to outline the various aspects of the programme, including the extent of the problem regarding chemicals in food and in other components of the environment; the background activities on chemical safety including the work of the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) begun in 1956 and the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) begun in 1961; the scope of the programme; the programme components; the proposed outputs such as toxicological evaluations, risk assessment, guidelines on methodology; handling of emergencies; provision of advisory services, etc.
65. With regard to the programme structure, it was pointed out that it would consist of a programme advisory committee; a WHO central unit; a network of national and other lead institutions; a number of sub-networks of participating institutions; and a technical committee consisting of heads of the lead institutions.
66. The Central Unit which had recently been set up within the Division of Environmental Health, co-existing with the Environmental Health Criteria and Standards Unit, which is also the focal point for WHO's food safety programme, had the following functions:
to develop plans and programmes of work, set procedures for programme operation and ensure its implementation as planned;
to coordinate the programme components located in national and other lead institutions, and the regional offices; and to ensure liaison with other international organizations; and
to provide technical and scientific support to the international programme on chemical safety.
67. Dr. Vouk also pointed out that such UN Agencies as FAO, ILO and UNEP had been invited to jointly sponsor this new programme. The Central Unit may eventually become a joint unit of all co-sponsoring agencies. It was indicated that, to date, some 50 countries had expressed interest in this programme, that seven memoranda of understanding had been drafted containing details of the participation of national institutions and that a further five memoranda of understanding were being considered. With regard to funding of IPCS, it was stated that with WHO regular budget funds, together with other contributions, voluntary contributions of Member States and UNEP supported projects, approximately 2.5 million was available for 1980.
68. During the discussion of this agenda item, a number of delegations, while fully supporting the efforts of WHO to gain control of the complex problem of chemicals in the environment, expressed concern, particularly regarding the future of the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) and the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) to which they attached great importance. These delegations stated that they would not wish to see the fundamental and essential role which these two Committees play as a corner stone to the work of the Commission and in assuring the safety of the world food supply, altered in any way. It was also pointed out that part of the concern resulted from the fact that in the documents presented to the Commission and in the statements by FAO and WHO officials, there appeared to be some confusion regarding the future of the JMPR and JECFA. In reply, Dr. Vouk stated that the two Expert Committees would continue to function as in the past to carry out toxicological evaluations by international groups of experts appointed by the Directors-General of the sponsoring agencies and acting in their personal capacity. It was moreover planned to increase the support to these Expert Committees with a view to holding two or more meetings in one year. With regard to the Codex Committee on Food Additives and the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, these committees would continue to play the same role with regard to the Expert Committees, as at present, with no duplication or overlap of work.
69. Another delegation expressed the view that it would be helpful if the Director-General of WHO would prepare a statement which would encompass the following points:
that JECFA and JMPR would continue unchanged in scope, selection and procedure during the period of formation and transition to the new programme; and
that, under the new programme, JECFA and JMPR would continue to provide the primary forum for the evaluation of hazard and estimation of risk associated with chemicals in foods, and that this would be the case irrespective of the continuation of the programme.
70. With regard to the concern that food chemicals might not be a priority item under the new programme, Dr. Vouk pointed out that since foods were the main pathway of exposure to chemicals, the chemicals found in foods would receive a very high priority. It was further stated that the priority setting practices of the Codex Committees on Food Additives and Pesticide Residues would continue.
71. Several delegations from developing countries pointed out the great value of such a programme to developing countries, but indicated that assistance would need to be provided in order that such countries could fully participate in such a programme. It was pointed out that this type of support was envisaged under the programme.
72. The Chief, FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, pointed out that FAO had been consulted and informed from the outset of the proposed new programme. It was his understanding that practices utilized by the Codex programme and the roles played by JECFA and the JMPR had influenced the design of this new programme. He indicated that he was satisfied with the assurances he had received from WHO that these two Expert Committees would not only function as in the past, but would be strengthened in order to increase their output. He pointed out that this programme was not only a WHO programme but an international one which other UN Agencies, including FAO, had been invited to co-sponsor and this latter matter was under consideration by FAO which would be taking into account the view of the Commission in its response to WHO.
73. The Commission, in expressing its appreciation to Dr. Vouk for his presentation of the international programme on chemical safety, recognized the importance of this programme and the influence which it could have upon the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Commission restated the importance which it placed upon the work of JECFA and the JMPR and noted the assurances given by WHO that these two Expert Committees would not only function as in the past but that their activities would be strengthened.
74. The Commission had before it a paper ALINORM 79/9 prepared by Dr. E.E. Turtle (Consultant). It had been prepared in response to the request recorded in paragraph 230 of the Report of the Twelfth Session of the Commission (ALINORM 78/41).
75. Dr. Turtle reminded the Commission that, at its Ninth Session, the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (ALINORM 78/24) had not accepted the proposal made at the Eleventh Session of the Commission (ALINORM 76/44, paragraph 389) that in addition to pesticides “similar environmental contaminants such as PCBs, dioxins, etc.” should fall within its terms of reference.
76. Document ALINORM 79/9 had been prepared in the light of the views expressed by some delegations at the Twelfth Session of the Commission that standards should be developed for environmental pollutants in foods. The main objectives of the document were to provide guidance on the range of environmental contaminants that might be involved in any general decision to cover such substances, and to provide suggestions on the mechanisms by which specific substances might receive priority for consideration, together with suggestions regarding the data required and criteria to be followed in its evaluation by FAO/WHO experts. The procedures by which cases might be dealt within the Codex system had also been covered.
77. In discussion, various delegations emphasized the need for priority attention to be given to measures for the prevention of the distribution of environmental pollutants and their access to foods. Some delegates expressed doubts concerning the advisability of establishing levels of acceptability for such substances. On the other hand, other delegations thought that the limitation in food of such contaminants might contribute to their diminution.
78. As regards the proposal to revise the Codex definition of contaminants, some delegations expressed the view that there appeared to be no real need for such a revision.
79. The delegation of The Netherlands suggested that cases for considering specific pollutants might be submitted to the Commission for decision on whether work on them should be initiated.
80. As many delegations considered that more time was needed to study the document, the Commission decided to circulate the document to Member Governments for comments and to the Codex Committees on Food Additives and Pesticide Residues for consideration and reporting back to the Commission.
