Mr. Deputy Director-General,
You have just given, in a few minutes, a precise and gripping survey of the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as seen from the excellent observation post-provided by your high position in FAO. Moreover, you have spoken in the name of the Directors-General of FAO and WHO, and the views you have expressed thence acquire even more weight.
It is not part of my functions to give my personal comments on the points that you have so pertinently raised.
Moreover, most of them will be dealt with under the agenda for our Session, and during the discussions, we shall bear in mind the hopes you have formulated with regard to their adoption by the Commission.
Much has been said about the new orientation of the Codex Commission's work during and since its Twelfth Session. This new orientation is real and justified. It fits quite naturally into the choice of priorities that the Commission is called on to make in conformity with its Statutes. The Commission thus decided on these priorities at our last meeting.
This new orientation is not due to any new factor in the preparation of the Codex standards.
Without wishing to go back to the creation of the Commission, for which you worked, as you have just reminded us, in 1962 the Commission had some thirty member countries. Today it has 117.
This is a vivid spectacular demonstration of the interest taken in the work of the Codex Commission by the Member Nations of FAO and WHO and, in particular, during recent years, by the developing countries. This interest did not appear suddenly; it has developed imperceptibly but steadily, becoming increasingly more evident and convincing through these countries ever more active participation in the work of the Commission.
At the beginning the Commission concentrated quite naturally on the commodities most common in international trade, its work resulting in the publication of a hundred or so recommended standards or codes of practice. There was no intention on anyone's part to establish a monopoly
The ever-growing interest shown by the developing countries in the work of the Codex Commission has resulted in them insisting, rightly, that the Commission now devote attention to commodities which might be of immediate or potential economic interest for these countries.
This is perfectly in accord with the guidelines of the Commission which, according to its Statutes, decides on priorities.
In this context, you mentioned the creation of two new Committees: one on Cereals and Cereal Products and the other on Vegetable Proteins.
I will complete this by referring also to the activity of existing Committees, such as those on Fats and Oils and on Fruit Juices, whose field of action is enlarging to include products from the developing countries. These are only examples.
In this same connection, the Regional Coordinating Committees now have greater latitude to deal with products directly related to the economy of their regions.
The Commission has therefore taken full account of the wishes expressed by the FAO Programme Committee and Council. The Twentieth Session of the FAO Conference, held just recently, explicitly recognized this fact.
I confidently expect that the Commission will not fail to endorse the new procedure worked out by the Committee on General Principles to ensure that in elaborating Codex Standards more obvious account be taken of their economic impact on the developing countries.
You have expressed the wish that nutritional aspects receive more attention from the Commission. Allow me to point out here that the standards are drawn up in accordance with a format which, I think I can affirm, constitutes a model of its kind. It covers essential composition and quality factors, additives, contaminants and hygiene provisions. These are all factors directly related to the promotion of products which should guarantee better quality of food. But the Codex cannot resolve nutritional problems through its standards and codes of practice. It must not be forgotten that the promotion of better nutrition is, above all, a question of preventive medicine. The FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission can, however, make a very positive contribution to promoting better nutrition through the elaboration of quality factors in its standards.
I am thinking in particular of the maximum levels of pesticide residues or other contaminants, or the composition requirements for products intended for infant feeding, or any other determinant factors relating to the content of indispensable nutritional elements.
You very appropriately insisted on the need for the developing countries to promote food commodity control. The need for this is obvious, but it is a matter which lies outside the scope of the activities of the Commission itself.
Control is the corollary of the publication and application of the standards, and is an objective to be attained with international aid. But here again the Commission will have made an appreciable contribution.
While awaiting attainment of this objective, which it is to be hoped will take place as soon as possible, the Codex proposes a Code of Ethics which will be submitted to the Commission at this session and which, I hope, will be adopted as it stands.
There is no concealing the obsessive problem that the acceptance of the standards by the so-called industrialized or developed countries still leaves something to be desired.
Perusal of the large publication of October 1978 on the state of acceptances is revealing in this connection. Few developed countries accept standards, while the reverse is true for the developing countries. Yet it is the former who have worked hard at elaborating the standards.
Realization of this fact should not make us resigned to it.
In the developed countries there are numerous legal constraints on integrating the standards (with or without specified deviations) into the set of national laws, often structured decades ago.
However, nothing is impossible in this field, for anyone who is convinced of the worth of the Codex aims at international level.
One should not be afraid of launching an appeal to all Codex members to make known their positions, whatever they may be, with regard to the standards.
Acceptance can take several forms. It may range from full acceptance, with or without deviations, to a simple declaration that products, conforming to a standard and not in opposition to national laws, can circulate freely in the notifying country. This is a first step. It would be perceived that the divergencies between one country and another are not fundamentally incompatible, and that the way could be opened up for eventual harmonization.
Other steps will come later, as control structures are gradually set up in the developing countries. The harmonization so extolled in international circles will then take on another dimension, so true it is that, as regards protecting the health of the consumer, the requirements of one population cannot be dissociated from those of others.
Mr. Deputy Director-General, I appreciate and sincerely thank you for the kind remarks you made about me. I have arrived, in fact, at the end of my career, during the last years of which the Codex has held a place of its own. It is true that the Commission and its subsidiary bodies represent the fora, from which all the participants always draw a certain benefit. The fact of meeting already presupposes a resolve to understand each other. The exchanges of view, the different approaches to problems which appear similar, even identical, the position adopted which at first appear unshakeable, but from which acceptable compromises often emerge, without thereby abandoning the essential, have often put me in mind of this thought of La Rochefoucault:
“It is a folly to want to be the only one in the right”.
I think that we are sensible enough to search together, if not for the truth, at least for a reasonable position.
Ladies and Gentlemen, before continuing, I would like to pay tribute to the memory of two persons well known to the Commission who have died since our last meeting: Dr. Viggo Enggaard and Dr. Mog Kondrup, both members of the Danish delegation.
Dr. Enggaard died six weeks ago, just after the session of the Codex Committee on General Principles, at the beginning of which he participated in the meeting of the working party responsible for giving the last touch to the draft Code of Ethics. He took an active part in all the sessions of the Codex Commission. His name appears on the list of participants at the first session in 1962. Since 1967 he had chaired with distinction the Codex Committee on Processed Meat Products.
This brief summary of his activities within the Codex bodies underlines how committed he was to our great work. His tact, his amiability, his competence had made Dr. Enggaard a figurehead of the Codex, and we shall always have warm memories of this man, as affable as he was modest.
Dr. Kondrup, who died at the beginning of the year, was also a well-known figure in the Commission and its Committees. He was a member of the FAO staff dealing with Food Additives. Like Dr. Enggaard, he participated in the activities of the Commission from its first session in 1962. His loyalty was equalled only by his competence in the Danish delegation.
We shall always remember with gratitude these two distinguished delegates and we beg the Danish delegation to accept our deep sympathy.
We would ask those present to rise and observe a few moments' silence in memory of these faithful servants of the Codex.
