Introduction
117. The Commission had before it the Report of the Sixth Session of the Codex Committee on General Principles (ALINORM 79/35). The Report was introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. G. Weill (France), who outlined its main features. In his introductory remarks the Chairman of the Committee drew the Commission's particular attention to paragraphs 41 to 53 of the Report concerning the Draft Code of Ethics for the International Trade in Food, which was being submitted to the Commission for consideration, with a view to its adoption as a Recommended Code of Ethics which would then be sent to Governments. The Draft Code was contained in Appendix IV of the Report.
118. The Chairman of the Committee also drew the Commission's particular attention to paragraph 46 of the Report and outlined some of the considerations behind the formulation of Articles 2, 3, 5.9 and 5.10 of the Draft Code. He also referred to Articles 6 and 7 of the Draft Code which, he indicated, had been the subject of lengthy discussions both at the two day meeting of the Working Party on the Draft Code and subsequently at the Plenary Session of the Committee.
119. The Chairman of the Committee drew the Commission's attention to paragraphs 5–14 of the Report concerning the question of establishing a mechanism for examining economic impact statements submitted under the amended Procedure for the Elaboration of Worldwide Codex Standards. The Chairman of the Committee outlined the proposals in this regard which had been adopted by the Committee and which were contained in Appendix II of the Report. The Chairman also briefly reviewed the other main features of the Report.
120. Concerning the Draft Code of Ethics for the International Trade in Food, a number of delegations and the representative of the International Organization of Consumers Unions (IOCU) thought that some reference should be made in Article 5.9 of the Draft Code to the projected Code of Ethics for the Marketing and Advertising of Infant Foods. The delegation of the United States of America proposed the following footnote:
“A Code of Ethics for the Marketing and Advertising of Infant Foods will be elaborated for adoption in due course by the Commission”.
It was agreed that a suitable footnote should be added to cover this point, the exact wording of which would be discussed when the Commission came to consider the report and work of the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses under a later item of the agenda. In this connection, the Commission agreed to accept, as a basis for discussion, the following footnote to Article 5.9 which had been suggested by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany “subject to the development of a Code of Ethics for the Marketing and Advertising of Infant Food”.
121. On the proposal of the delegation of Brazil which referred to the excellent working relationship and cooperation between the Codex Secretariat and the GATT Secretariat, the Commission agreed to include a reference in the Preamble of the Code to the GATT Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade along the following lines:
“RECOGNIZING THAT (f) the GATT Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade represents an appropriate instrument for the regulation of international trade”.
Status of the Draft Code of Ethics for the International Trade in Food
122. Subject to agreement on the precise wording of the proposed footnote to Article 5.9 of the Draft Code, as mentioned in paragraph 120 above, the Commission adopted the Draft Code of Ethics for the International Trade in Food as a Recommended International Code, which should be sent to governments for consideration and comments. The delegation of India agreed, in principle, to the adoption of such code but had reservations on certain clauses. The delegation of India also suggested that due regard be given to the conditions in developing countries, as recognized in the GATT Code.
123. Concerning the question of establishing an appropriate mechanism for considering statements from governments relating to the possible economic impact of the standards, the Commission agreed with the conclusions of the Committee as recorded in paragraphs 5–14 of ALINORM 79/35. In particular, the Commission agreed that the most appropriate body for examining economic impact statements was the subsidiary body of the Commission which had been responsible for elaborating the standard in question, it being understood, however, that it might be necessary to refer the matter to other subsidiary bodies depending on the content of the economic impact statement.
124. The Commission also adopted the proposals of the Secretariat, which had been endorsed by the Codex Committee on General Principles, and which were designed to ensure that there would be specific provision for the consideration of economic impact statements at all major Steps of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards. Additionally, the proposals were aimed at ensuring that particular attention would be given to economic impact statements in Codex Committees. These proposals, which were contained in Appendix II of ALINORM 79/35, included amendments to the “Guide to the Consideration of Standards at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards” and to the “Guidelines for Codex Committees”.
125. A proposal was put forward by the delegation of India that it might be desirable for the Codex Secretariat to develop a questionnaire on the subject of economic impact statements. It was agreed, however, that the countries concerned were in the best position to judge and report on any implications which the standards or any provisions of them might have for their economies. Also circular letters issued by the Codex Secretariat seeking comments from Governments on draft standards would include reference to economic impact statements. The Commission adopted the proposals contained in Appendix II of ALINORM 79/35.
Confirmation of the Chairmanship
130. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on General Principles should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of France.
131. The Commission had before it the reports of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Sessions of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (ALINORM 79/22 and ALINORM 79/22A).
132. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. R.S. McGee (Canada) gave an account of the work undertaken since the last session of the Commission, placing emphasis on those matters which, in the opinion of the Committee, required attention by the Commission.
Matters Arising from the Reports of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling
137. The Commission recalled that at its Twelfth Session, it had generally agreed with the above guidelines. However, the Committee on Labelling had been requested to clarify section 1 (Purpose) and sections 2.3 and 4.2 dealing with claims related to food used in the dietary management of a disease, disorder or particular physiological condition and to discuss the responsibility for substantiating claims.
138. The Commission noted that the Thirteenth Session of the Committee on Labelling had established a working group to examine the above matters in the light of government comments. The Chairman of the Committee stated that the Committee on Labelling had confirmed that the guidelines should cover all foods and drew attention to the conclusions of the Committee contained in paragraphs 85–94 of ALINORM 79/22.
139. He stressed that the very carefully revised wording of Section 2.3 accommodated also the views of governments concerning the need for specific provisions dealing with claims related to foods for use in the dietary management of a disease, disorder or particular condition (paragraph 4.2 of Appendix III of ALINORM 78/22).
140. Several delegations felt that the wording of Section 2.3(b) should be of greater clarity. It was recognized, however, that the revised text of Section 2.3 was a pragmatic approach to the problem and did in fact reflect Codex practice to permit the deviation from certain general rules and provisions in the case where specific Codex standards or guidelines were applicable to a product. It did also cover products for which Codex standards or guidelines had not yet been elaborated.
141. The view was expressed that the guidelines as such and in particular Section 2.3 were of importance to developing countries receiving enriched foods, as the provisions of the Guidelines would permit the indication of useful information on added nutrients. The delegation of Thailand stated that section 2.3(b) placed countries which had not yet promulgated legislation dealing with labelling and claims in a disadvantageous position, since no exemptions from the general prohibition of these claims could be permitted in such countries.
142. The Commission adopted the General Guidelines on Claims. The delegation of Thailand reserved its position on this decision of the Commission.
143. The Commission was informed that the Committee, at its Thirteenth Session, had examined a working paper on guidelines for the labelling of bulk containers and that the majority of the Committee had agreed that there was a need for some international rules or guidelines for the labelling of bulk containers. The Committee had prepared revised Draft Guidelines for the Labelling of Non-Retail Containers (Appendix IV to ALINORM 79/22) and government comments were being requested on the draft for consideration by the next Session of the Committee on Labelling. The Commission noted the view expressed by the Chairman of the Committee that the finalized guidelines would be submitted to the next Session of the Commission. The delegation of Denmark proposed that the above guidelines be also referred for comments to Codex Commodity Committees to obtain their opinion with regard to bulk labelling provisions for products under their jurisdiction. The delegation felt that, in order to elaborate comprehensive guidelines, information should be gathered on all foodstuffs in all types of containers. The Commission agreed with the above proposal and instructed the Codex Secretariat to arrange for informing the Commodity Committees accordingly.
144. The Chairman of the Committee on Labelling informed the Commission that the Twelfth Session of the Committee had commenced the elaboration of the above guidelines and that the work had been greatly facilitated by the excellent background paper and draft guidelines prepared by a group of expert consultants. In view of the utmost importance and extreme complexity of the subject, the Committee on Labelling had expressed the wish to develop the above guidelines within the Step Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards, which could be applied, as indicated in the Procedural Manual, to other Codex texts such as guidelines (paragraph 2 of the “Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Codes of Practice, Codex Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues, Codex Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives”, as set forth in the Procedural Manual, 4th Edition).
145. The Commission agreed that it was appropriate to develop guidelines on nutrition labelling within the Step Procedure and that government comments on the draft guidelines as contained in Appendix VII should be requested for the next Session of the Committee on Labelling.
146. The delegation of Senegal, speaking as Coordinator for Africa, stated that the Coordinating Committee had followed the discussion on nutrition labelling with great interest. At its Fourth Session that Committee had received a progress report and had noted that several delegations at the Committee on Labelling had stressed the importance of the need for simplicity in the presentation of nutrition information on labels. The Coordinating Committee had been of the opinion that whenever possible visual symbols and colours should be used to give information on nutritional value of products. The Coordinating Committee had expressed its appreciation to the Working Group on Nutrition Labelling and to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling for the valuable work undertaken and had agreed with the present principles expressed in the Draft Guidelines.
147. The Chairman reported on the discussion of the Thirteenth Session of the Committee concerning the revision of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (paragraphs 120–127 of ALINORM 79/22). He informed the Commission that the Committee, having decided that there was a need to revise the above standard, had requested the services of a consultant to prepare a comprehensive working paper on the subject matter. He outlined a number of issues which had been identified during the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Sessions to be taken into account by the consultant in preparing the document.
148. The Secretariat informed the Commission that arrangements were being made to engage a consultant for the timely preparation of the paper for the next Session of the Committee.
150. Several delegation stressed the need for simplicity of basic regulations and the Coordinator for Europe expressed the view that there might be some scope for regional consideration of these problems. On the proposal of the Chairman of the commission, it was agreed that the most appropriate way to deal with the matters outlined in the above paper would be to include a review of the paper into the terms of reference of the consultant.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
151. The commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the committee on Food Labelling should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Canada.
152. The commission had before it the Reports of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Sessions of the codex committee on Food Additives (ALINORMS 79/12 and 79/12A).
153. The Chairman of the committee, Dr. G.F. Wilmink (Netherlands) gave an account of the work accomplished by the committee since the last session of the commission. He also introduced the various standards and codes at step 8 of the Procedure, the specifications of food additives and the draft standard for salt at step 5 and matters arising from the two reports of the codex committee on Food Additives.
Matters Arising from the Reports of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Sessions of the Codex Committee on Food Additives
“Section 3 of the “Principle relating to the carry-over of Additives into Foods” (ALINORM 76/12, Appendix III) shall apply”
or
“No food additives shall be present as a result of carry-over from raw materials or other ingredients”.
155. It was understood that where the carry-over principle was not relevant (since no carry-over was possible) no mention would be made of it in the standard. The commission requested codex commodity committees to ensure that all standards should include reference to the carry-over principle as and where appropriate.
156. The commission concurred with the view of the codex committees on Food Additives and Labelling that food additives carried over in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Carryover principle should not be declared on the label in the list of ingredients.
“A processing aid is a substance or material, not including apparatus or utensils, and not consumed as a food ingredient by itself, intentionally used in the processing of raw materials, foods or its ingredients, to fulfil a certain technological purpose during treatment or processing and which may result in the non-intentional but unavoidable presence of residues or derivatives in the final product”.
158. It agreed with the view of the codex committees on Food Additives and Labelling that processing aids should not be declared on the label in the list of ingredients. It was pointed out by two delegations that residues of processing aids in food, although very small, could be of significance in relation to the consumer by virtue, for example, of their allergenic properties.
159. The delegation of India drew the Commission's attention to paragraph 32 of ALINORM 79/12 which dealt with the question, raised at the second session of the Coordinating Committee for Asia, of the use of coal tar dyes to colour food. In the opinion of that delegation, the use of such substances for purely cosmetic purposes was not justified. The Chairman of the codex committee on Food Additives, in replying to the above statement, indicated that endorsement of food colours, whether natural or synthetic, was based on consideration of safety and technological justification by Codex Commodity Committees. He was of the opinion, however, that this matter could be further considered by the codex committee on Food Additives.
160. The commission had before it the above Draft Standard (Appendix IX, ALINORM 79/12). It noted that the Codex Committee on Food Additives, at its Thirteenth Session, had proposed an amendment to section 5 of the Draft Standard so as to make the declaration of the name of the additive on bulk containers, as well as an indication of minimum durability, mandatory, It also noted that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, at its Fourteenth Session did not endorse the above amendment, as it did not consider the inclusion of information on the label concerning date marking necessary in the case of bulk containers.
161. After some discussion, the commission decided that the amendment proposed by the codex committee on Food Additives was appropriate and that it should be included in the Draft Standard for the Labelling of Food Additives when sold as such. It also adopted the amendment proposed by the delegation of The Netherlands to sections 4.1(c) and 5.1(c) to allow for the qualifier “nature-identical” in relation to the use of the expression “flavour”. The text adopted by the commission is as follows:
“The expression “flavour” or “flavouring” may be qualified by the words “natural” “nature-identical”, “artificial” or a combination of these words as appropriate.”
Status of the Draft Standard for the Labelling of Food Additives when sold as such
162. The commission adopted, as a recommended standard, the Draft Standard for the Labelling of Food Additives when sold as such at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Worldwide Codex Standards.
163. The commission had before it the above Draft Standard (Appendix X, ALINORM 79/12) and amendments thereto, proposed by the Thirteenth session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (Appendix II, ALINORM 79/12A).
164. The commission noted that the above amendments were based on those proposed by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene and that the Codex Committee on Food Additives had taken most of the recommendations of the Food Hygiene committee into account. It also noted, however, that an amendment to section 3 of the Draft General Standard proposed by the codex committee on Food Hygiene had not been taken over by the codex committee on Food Additives and that the endorsement of the Hygiene Section was conditional to that amendment being made.
165. The commission decided, therefore, that the amendment proposed by the codex committee on Food Hygiene, given below, should be included in section 3:
“Any relevant national public health requirement affecting microbiological and nutritional safety applicable in the country in which the food is sold should be observed.”
166. In discussing the Draft General standard, the delegation of the United Kingdom expressed the opinion that it was premature to advance the Standard to Step 9 of the procedure, in view of the fact that the Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods would re-discuss the question of general clearance of the process of food radiation at its 1980 meeting. Such possible general clearance (up to a given number of kRads) would necessitate a significant revision of the Draft General Standard. That delegation also expressed its reservation concerning the use of ionizing radiation in the treatment of food designed to reduce the number of pathogenic microorganisms. The delegation of Italy supported this view and also pointed to the formation of free radicals, as a result of the use of ionizing radiation, the effects of which were not fully understood. In its opinion, the codex committees on Processed Meat and Poultry Products and Fish and Fishery Products should also be consulted in relation to the process of irradiation of those foods.
167. The delegation of Austria reserved its position concerning the decision of the codex committee on Food Additives, at its Thirteenth Session, to amend the Scope section of the standard by removing reference to doses of 50 rad, below which foods should not be considered as having been irradiated. It also pointed to the problem of mutation and selective kill of microorganisms and also the fact that it was impossible to control whether imported foods had been irradiated or whether they were partially made up of irradiated components. The delegation of France had reservations concerning the use of ionizing radiation in connection with some of the foods (e.g. chicken) listed in the Annex to the Standard and also was of the opinion that the treatment of foods by chemicals, either before or after irradiation, should not be permitted.
168. The representative of IAEA pointed out that the question of botulism had been given detailed consideration in drawing up the standard and that the views of the codex committee on Food Hygiene had been taken up in the standard. IAEA had received official request from 12 countries for the establishment of an internationally accepted standard for irradiated foods. The delegation of Hungary, supported by the delegations of Austrlia, United States of America, Thailand, Canada and Argentina, stated that it attached great importance to the development of a general standard for irradiated foods, since food irradiation represented an acceptable alternative to chemical treatment of food, which had enormous potential. Food irradiation was economically feasible and represented a physical, non-polluting process of interest both to developing and developed countries, since its application resulted in a considerable reduction of food losses. Furthermore, irradiated foods had been found to be wholesome on the basis of extensive scientific investigations.
Status of the Draft General Standard for Irradiated Foods
169. The commission adopted, as a recommended standard, the Draft General Standard for Irradiated Foods at step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Worldwide codex Standards.
170. The commission adopted the above draft code of practice at step 8 of the codex procedure for the Elaboration of standards and codes of practice.
171. In discussing the above specifications, the representative of the EEC raised a question concerning the status of codex specifications. As codex specifications, unlike EEC specifications, were not mandatory (i.e not subject to acceptance by governments), the question arose as to whether foods containing additives not complying with codex specifications should be regarded as not being in compliance with the food additive provisions of the standard. He further expressed the view that absence of mandatory and internationally accepted specifications for food additives led to a situation where food additives complying with various standards of purity were being used in foods traded internationally. In the opinion of the representative of the EEC this situation was not satisfactory.
172. The Commission was informed that, although codex specifications covered a wide range of chemical manufacturing processes, they defined products which were toxicologically acceptable. In fact, Codex specifications represented minimum safety requirements which should be observed in relation to the identity and purity of food additives used in food. In accepting a codex standard in which the use of food additives was provided for, governments undertook to ensure that additives used in the food covered by that standard corresponded at least to the purity requirements laid down in the relevant codex specifications.
173. A number of delegations were of the opinion that the problems raised by the representative of the EEC were not of practical importance, in that differences between food grade chemicals were usually small and within the limits of toxicological acceptability.
174. The delegation of Tanzania, in this connection, requested the codex committee on Food Additives also to make an effort to elaborate suitable methods of analysis for the food additives in the final food, in order to facilitate the control of the food additive use.
Status of the Specifications of Identity and Purity of Food Additives at step 5
175. The commission adopted the specifications contained in Appendix VII of ALINORM 79/12 as recommended codex Specifications.
176. The commission had before it the above draft standard and noted that the codex committee on Food Additives had recommended that a full standard rather than only purity specifications should be elaborated for food grade salt. It had also recommended that the standard adopted by the committee and referred to the commission at step 5 should be referred to Regional Coordinating committees for consideration. The committee had also requested the commission to give guidance concerning the way the standard should be further elaborated.
177. During the discussion, most delegations expressed their agreement with the recommendation of the codex committee on Food Additives that salt should be treated as a food and that a standard should be elaborated for it. The delegation of the United Kingdom expressed preference for the elaboration of specifications rather than a standard. The commission noted that the proposed standard was a minimum standard and that more specific requirements could be laid down for salt used in the processing of certain foods, such as fish.
178. The Commission was informed that the European Committee for the Study of Salt would be cooperating in the elaboration of a Codex Standard for this commodity.
179. The delegation of Austria, speaking as chairman of the coordinating committee for Europe, was of the opinion that it would be more approprate for that coordinating committee to handle the elaboration of the standard for salt rather than the codex committee on Food Additives.
Status of the proposed Draft Standard for Food Grade Salt
180. The commission agreed that a standard should be elaborated for food grade salt and that such a standard should include provisions for labelling, methods of analysis and other appropriate requirements. It also agreed that an ad hoc Working Group, within the framework of the codex committee on Food Additives, should handle the elaboration of such a standard. It decided to advance the draft standard for food grade salt to step 6 of the codex procedure and also decided that the draft standard be referred to the coordinating committees for consideration and comments.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
181. 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. It expressed its appreciation and thanks to the retiring Chairman of the Codex committee on Food Additives, Dr. G.F. Wilmink (Netherlands) for his long and active support of the committee's work.
182. The commission had before it the Reports of the Fifteenth and sixteenth Sessions of the codex committee on Food Hygiene (ALINORM 79/13 and ALINORM 79/13A) and government comments (ALINORM 79/37 - part 10 (FH).
183. The Rapporteur, Dr. R.W. Weik (USA) introduced the two Reports.
184. The commission was informed that the code had been extensively revised both by an ad hoc Working Group and at the two sessions of the committee.
185. It noted that the amendments proposed in ALINORM 79/37 - part 10 (FH) had been provided as a result of the discussion on the code during the Sixteenth Session of the committee, when it had been agreed to replace the term “clean potable water” by reference to section 7.3 (“Use of Water”) of the Revised Draft Code of Practice - General Principles of Food Hygiene. The delegation of Australia had undertaken to review and amend the code before submission to the commission at the present session.
186. The commission noted that consequential amendments would be necessary in the codes of Hygienic practice for peanuts (Groundnuts) and for Foods for Infants and Children.
187. It was recognized that revision of the code had been in progress for some time and that there was now an urgent need for a new edition so that existing codes of Hygienic practice could be revised and updated.
Status of the Revised Draft code of Practice - General Principles of Food Hygiene
188. The commission agreed with the recommendation of the codex committee on Food Hygiene and adopted the Revised Draft Code of Practice - General principles of Food Hygiene as a Recommended code at step 8.
189. The commission was informed that a code had been examined and amended by an ad hoc Working Group which had met in Berlin in November 1976 and further amended during discussions at the Fifteenth Session of the committee (ALINORM 79/13, paragraphs 70–80).
190. The commission had also attached to the code microbiological specifications and methods for microbiological analysis which had been examined by the 2nd Joint FAO/WHO Expert consultation held in Geneva in March 1977 (see EC/Microbiol/77/Report 2, pages 7, 8 and Annex V).
191. The Commission noted that there was a consensus to adopt the main body of the code at step 8. With regard to the microbiological specifications, however, there was some division of opinion as to whether they should be advanced with the main code or returned to step 6 for further consideration.
192. Some delegations thought that since the codes were advisory, the inclusion of microbiological specifications presented no difficulties. Others pointed out that there had been some discussion at the last session of the codex committee on Foods for special Dietary Uses as to whether or not the microniological specifications should be mandatory and that no decision had been reached (see ALINORM 79/26).
193. The Commission noted that the type of methods to be used might well depend on whether the microbiological criteria were mandatory or to be used as guidelines. The present methods stipulated the use of 3-class plans which might not be necessary for product control or inplant inspection.
194. In the light of these opinions, the Commission agreed that the microbiological criteria should receive further consideration by governments.
195. The Commission noted the observations of the delegation of Poland, supported by the delegation of Senegal, who were of the opinion that the Code should provide for the manufacture of products in separate buildings and production lines and exclude the use of chemical disinfectants.
Status of the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Foods for Infants and Children
196. The Commission decided to adopt the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice, with the exception of the microbiological criteria, at Step 8 of the Procedure and to return the Microbiological Specifications and Methods for Microbiological Analysis for Foods for Infants and Children to Step 6 of the Procedure for further consideration.
197. The Rapporteur noted the amendments which had been made to the Code as a result of discussions at the Sixteenth Session of the Committee and the discussion which had taken place at the Fourth Session of the Coordinating committee for Africa.
198. It also noted that in the opinion of the delegation of Poland, zero tolerances for aflatoxin accompanied by a specific method of analysis should appear as end product specifications; it was recognized, however, that in the present circumstances it would not be possible to apply such limits generally.
199. The delegation of Norway pointed out that low water activity was a critical factor in preventing the development of microbial growth and that this was best controlled by good harvesting and storage practices. It informed the Commission that the Norwegian Food Research Institute had developed a simple method for the determination of water activity which it would supply on request to those interested.
200. Several delegations from producing countries reiterated their previously expressed opinion that the Code was too complex for immediate application in many countries, but recognized that it seved as a useful guideline for future development.
Status of the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Peanuts (Groundnuts)
201. The Committee decided to adopt the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Peanuts (Groundnuts) at Step 8 of the Procedure.
202. The Commission noted that the Draft Code had been prepared by an ad hoc Working Group under the Chairmanship of Canada which had met between Session of the Committee and that the Code and Annexes I and II dealing with Acidified Low-acid Canned Food and analytical methodology for pH measurement, respectively, had been further considered at its Sixteenth Session (ALINORM 79/13A, paragraphs 94–99). It had been decided to recommend to the Commission the advancement of the Code in its entirety to Step 8.
Status of the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Low-acid and Acidified Low-acid Canned Foods
203. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene and decided to adopt the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Low-acid and Acidified Low-acid Canned Foods and Annexes I and II at Step 8 of the Procedure.
204. The Commission noted that Annex I had been examined both by an ad hoc Working Group and by the Committee (ALINORM 79/13A, paragraphs 41–49). In view of the fact that major agreement had been reached, the Committee had decided to advance Annex I to Step 5 and to recommend to the commission the omission of Steps 6 and 7 so that the Annex could join the main Code.
Status of the Revised Draft Code of Practice - General Principles of Food Hygiene, Annex I, Cleaning and Disinfection
205. The commission decided to adopt the Revised Draft Code of Practice - General principles of Food Hygiene, Annex I, Cleaning and Disinfection at step 8 of the procedure.
206. The Rapporteur informed the commission that the above code had been examined and amended by the committee in the light of recommendations made by an ad hoc Working Group which had met immediately before its Sixteenth Session (see ALINORM 79/13A, paragraphs 86– 92).
207. The Commission noted the observations of the delegations of Austria, which pointed out that there was no provisions in the code for the control of the presence of Aflatoxin M1 in dried milk which might reach significant levels in some countries.
208. The delegation of Senegal emphasized the importance of controlling the quality of dried milk and of the water used for reconstitution of the product which was widely used in food aid and infant feeding programmes in his country.
209. The commission also noted that it had been agreed that the Milk Committee should review the Code at its next meeting and that the sampling plans and Microbiological Limits in Annex I should be reviewed by a future Working Group on Microbiological criteria for Foods.
Status of the proposed Draft Code of Hygienic practice for Dried Milk
210. The commission decided to advance the proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Dried Milk to Step 6 of the Procedure.
211. The commission noted that, as reported in ALINORM 79/21, pages 3 and 4, the general problems of relating microbiological criteria to mandatory and advisory provisions in Codex documents had been discussed further by an FAO/WHO Working Group on Microbiological Criteria for Foods which met in Geneva (20–26 February 1979) and had recommended a text for inclusion in a future edition of the Procedural Manual of the Commission.
212. The Commission was informed that this text had been further amended at the Sixteenth Session of the committee but had not yet been circulated in toto for consideration by governments.
213. It was decided to suspend further action until the text had been re-examined by the Codex committee on Food Hygiene in the light of government comments.
214. The commission was informed that at its Thirteenth Session (ALINORM 79/13, paragraphs 118–123) the committee had discussed the above subject, but that a decision on whether a Code of practice should be elaborated had been deferred until such time as the Geneva Working Group on Microbiological Specifications for Food had further discussed microbiological criteria in Codex standards and Codes of practice.
215. The Committee had noted that there was general agreement that international trade in Ice Mixes and Edible Ices was somewhat restricted and for this reason the application of microbiological criteria to, or the elaboration of a code of practice for, such products had a low priority. It had been decided not to proceed with the Code at this time.
216. The Commission was informed that the necessity for the preparation of a glossary harmonizing definitions in Food Hygiene documents had been discussed during Sessions of the Codex committee on Food Hygiene and that at its Fourteenth Session the committee had decided to refer the matter to the Executive committee.
217. The commission noted that the subject had been discussed at the Twenty-Fifth Session of the Executive committee (ALINORM 79/3, paragraphs 68–70) and it had been agreed that it might be useful to elaborate a short glossary of terms in the food hygiene field, the meaning of which should not vary. The Executive committee had accepted the offer of Dr. Lowe (WHO) to make the preliminary version of the WHO glossary on food hygiene available to the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene for use as a working document. On the other hand, any comment that the Food Hygiene committee might make would be most helpful in finalizing the WHO glossary. The Executive committee considered that the WHO glossary would be very useful to the Codex committee on Food Hygiene in the further development of this work. The Executive committee had expressed its appreciation to Australia for the preliminary work it had done in the compilation of definitions and noted with satisfaction the willingness of Australia to collaborate in the development of the glossary referred to above.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
218. The commission confirmed that under Rule IX.10 the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of the United States of America.
219. The commission had before it the reports of the Tenth and Eleventh Session of the above committee (ALINORMS 79/24, 79/24A and 79/24A-ADD.I) and Government comments on step 8 maximum residue limits in ALINORM 78/37, part 4.
220. The Chairman of the Codex committee on Pesticide Residues, Ir. A.J. Pieters (Netherlands), gave an account of the work accomplished by the committee since the last Session of the commission. He also introduced those items which had been referred to the commission for action.
221. Ir. Pieters drew the commission's attention to a significant increase in attendance by developing countries at sessions of the codex committee on Pesticide Residues, which indicated the interest of those countries in the work of the committee. Indeed, an ad hoc Working Group, under the Chairmanship of Prof. W. Almeida (Brazil) had been established at the last session of the committee in order to study the problems with regard to pesticide residues in developing countries. The committee had also reviewed its work since 1966 and had adopted the Resolution contained in Appendix II, ALINORM 79/24A. The Resolution stressed the need for an increased flow of information concerning pesticide residues in foods to the Joint Meeting, and also the need for stregthening the work of the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues and the Codex committee on Pesticide Residues by sufficient funding and staffing by FAO and WHO. The committee had also given consideration to difficulties experienced by some countries in accepting Codex Recommended Maximum Residue Limits and had found that often this was due to legal problems rather than lack of willingness on the part of Governments to react favourably to the recommendations of the commission.
222. The commission agreed that it was not practical to discuss in detail the maximum residue limits recommended by the codex committee, except where governments had submitted the proposals for the amendment of Maximum Residues Limits at Step 8.
223. The delegation of Argentina indicated that it had insufficient time to study the large number of recommendations in any detail. Other delegations indicated that they had experienced the same difficulties.
224. The delegation of the United States of America expressed the opinion that the maximum residue for 2,4-D in raw cereals should not be advanced to step 9 as, in their opinion, the limit did not take into account sufficiently the conjugated 2,4-D. In this connection, the commission noted that the limit for 2,4-D was supported by appropriate methods of analysis recommended by the committee. The delegation of Australia pointed out that there was a need for an international recommendation for 2,4-D residues in cereals and that there limit proposed by the committee was appropriate, especially as the residue disappeared on storage and cooking.
225. The commission decided not to return the maximum residue limit for 2,4-D in cereals to the committee, but agreed that this matter be brought to the attention of the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues.
226. A number of delegations indicated that their agreement to advance the maximum residue limits at step 9 in the procedure did not in any way indicate that their governments would accept all the recommended limits at step 9 of the procedure. However, it was thought to be neither practical nor necessary by these delegations to indicate those maximum residue limits which would not be accepted by their governments when considering recommendations at step 9.
227. The commission noted that the Codex Committee on pesticide Residues had recommended the omission of steps 6 and 7 for a number of maximum residues limits at step 5 which had not been controversial within the committee.
228. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany expressed the view that steps 6 and 7 should not be omitted.
Status of the proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits at Step 5
229. The commission decided to advance all maximum residue limits indicated in ALINORM 79/24A-ADD. I as being at step 5 to step 6 of the codex procedure. It also decided to omit Steps 6 and 7 where such omission had been recommended by the codex committee on pesticide Residues.
230. The commission noted that the codex committee on Pesticide Residues had recommended .to amend a number of maximum residue limits at step 9 of the Procedure (see ALINORM 79/24A-ADD.I). Some of the amendments were considered to be nonsubstantive by the committee and were so indicated. The commission concurred with the recommendations of the codex comittee on Pesticide Residues and decided that substantive amendments should be referred to Governments at step 3 of the Procedure for the amendment of codex Maximum Residue Limits. As regards nonsubstantative amendments, the codex secretariat was requested to make the necessary changes in future codex publications on maximum residue limits.
231. The Chairman of the codex committee on Pesticide Residues expressed the opinion that it might be desirable to delete codex recommendations for Maximum Residue Limits at Step 9, where the commission had decided to intiate the amendment of those limits. This was desirable in order to avoid the situation where two differing recommendations existed at the same time.
232. The commission noted that, according to the rules governing the revision of codex standards, maximum residue limits at Step 9 would remain in force until replaced by amendments adopted by the commission.
233. The commission noted that the codex committee on pesticide Residues, at its Tenth Session, had decided not to proceed with the elaboration of maximum residue limits in tobacco and had agreed that this matter be brought to the Commission for guidance. The Commission concurred with the view of the committee reaffirming that tobacco did not fall within its terms of reference, as it was not an item of food.
Confirmation of the Chairmanship
236. 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.
237. The Report of the Eleventh session of the codex committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (ALINORM 79/23) was introduced by Dr. T. Karacsony, on behalf of the Chairman, Prof. R. Lasztity.
239. The Commission noted that the general reference method had been collaboratively studied and having been published elsewhere (JAOAC 58; 399–400 (1975)) would normally only be referenced in Codex Standards.
240. However, because it had been decided by the Committee that a progressive conversion to S.I units be made in Codex Standards and because collaborative studies had been made, it had been decided to present it in standard layout as a model and to add to it references to the collaborative studies and the data indicating the characteristics of the method for guidance to analysts (see ALINORM 79/23, Appendix IV).
Status of the Proposed General Reference Method for the Determination of Chlorines in Food
241. The Commission adopted the proposed General Reference Method for the Determination of Chlorines in Food as a Recommended Reference Method at Step 8 of the Procedure.
Proposed Editorial Changes to the Committee's Terms of Reference Proposed Revision of Paragraph 13 (c) (i) of the Guidelines for Codex Committees Relating to Methods of Analysis and Sampling (Procedural Manual of the Commission, 4th Edition)
242. The Commission noted that the Committee had examined the revised terms of references agreed to by the Commission at its previous Session (ALINORM 78/41, paragraphs 282–285) and had made some minor editorial amendments.
243. The Commission agreed to the amended terms of reference, to the revised text for paragraph 13 (c) (i) of the Procedural Manual and to the General Principles for Establishment of Codex Methods of Analysis and Sampling (see ALINORM 79/23, Appendix II).
244. It recognized that the latter did not yet contain a section on methods of sampling which had yet to be studied by the Committee and agreed that until such time as a suitable text on sampling was submitted to the Commission, the present procedures should be tested in practice by the Committee.
245. Concerning the last paragraph, of the amended text of paragraph 13 (c) (i) (ALINORM 78/ 23, Appendix II, P.18) the delegation of the United States of America pointed out that this should not be interpreted as inhibiting the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling from undertaking work, where necessary, on collaborative studies on methods which were not being studied by other bodies.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
246. 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 Hungary.
248. The Commission was informed that the document had recently been revised at a meeting of an FAO/WHO Working Group which met in Geneva in October 1979. The document was currently being translated and printed and would shortly be sent to Codex Member Countries for comment.
250. The delegation of New Zealand informed the Commission that the next meeting of the Committee would be held in London in May 1981.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
251. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of New Zealand.
