36. The Commission had before it the Report of the Fourth Session of the Codex Committee on General Principles (ALINORM 74/36), which was introduced by Mr. G. Weill (France) who had chaired the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee recalled that the subject matters which had been considered by the Committee at its fourth session had been specifically assigned to the Committee for consideration by the Commission at its ninth session. The Committee had considered the Procedure for Acceptance of Recommended Codex Standards, in particular “acceptance with minor deviations”. The Committee had decided to abolish the concept of “acceptance with minor deviations”, for reasons which were set forth in its report and outlined by the Chairman of the Committee, and to substitute therefor a new form of acceptance to be known as “acceptance with specified deviations”. This decision had led the Committee to propose the introduction of a new Step in the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards, requiring, inter alia, the Secretariat to publish periodically the notifications, including details of specified deviations, received from governments with respect to each recommended standard. The Committee had also elaborated a separate and complete procedure for the acceptance of Codex maximum limits and practical residue limits for pesticide residues, which it was also recommending to the Commission for adoption. The texts of the changes proposed by the Committee for adoption by the Commission were set forth in Appendices III and IV to the Committee's report. In addition the Committee had proposed a small amendment to paragraph 4 C(i) of the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius, the text of which was set forth in paragraph 31 of the Committee's report.
37. In accordance with the Committee's decision the Secretariat had put together in one document - ALINORM 74/43 - all of the textual changes to the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius and to the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards which were adopted by the Committee at its fourth session. Also, as instructed by the Committee, the Secretariat had included in document ALINORM 74/43 such consequential changes as appeared necessary in the light of the Committee's decisions. Document ALINORM 74/43 also included a proposed draft format for the drawing up of declarations of acceptance or non-acceptance of Recommended Codex Standards. The Commission agreed therefore to regard document ALINORM 74/43 as its principal working document.
38. The Commission decided to defer consideration of the recommended new acceptance procedure for Codex maximum limits for pesticide residues until it had come to the item on the agenda dealing with the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.
39. The point was made by a number of delegations that under the proposed “acceptance with specified deviations” there was no limit either to the nature or extent of the deviations which a government might specify in giving this form of acceptance, and that there should be some criteria to which reference might be made, for the purpose of determining whether an acceptance was meaningful or whether it was tantamount, in reality, to non-acceptance. It was brought to the Commission's attention that the point had been discussed fully at the Committee's session. The Committee had considered the question of establishing criteria for the purpose of drawing a line of demarcation between meaningful “acceptance with specified deviations” and non-acceptance and there had been some draft criteria before the Committee. But opinion had been divided in the Committee on even the need for any such criteria, let alone what the criteria should be. The Committee had proposed that the views of governments should be sought on various specified points in connection with this question, and thus it recognized that this subject would need to be considered further. It was, however, the view of the great majority at the General Principles Committee session that, although the question of establishing criteria for distinguishing between “meaningful” and “non-meaningful” acceptance ought to be considered further by the Committee, this did not detract from the value of the concept of the proposed new form of acceptance, which had been justified, to the satisfaction of the majority at the Committee session on the basis of several considerations, quite independently of the question of the need for criteria.
40. It was also brought to the Commission's attention that under the proposed amendment to the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards, details of the specified deviations would be provided periodically by the Secretariat, and furthermore when a standard came to be published in the Codex Alimentarius there would be an appendix for each standard (i) listing those countries in which products conforming with the standard could be distributed freely, and (ii) stating in detail all the specified deviations declared. This was the sort of information which Member Countries and the food industries needed to know. In addition, under the proposed amendments to the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards, it would be the task of the Secretariat to examine the deviations notified by governments and to report to the Commission concerning possible amendments to standards. The point was made by one delegation that Codex Commodity Committees would be particularly well equipped to advise on whether specified deviations declared under the new form of acceptance were such as to undermine the value of the standard concerned, and the Commission did not exclude the possible future value of this suggestion. The point was also made, however, that experience had yet to be gained of the sort of deviations which governments might declare under the proposed new form of acceptance.
41. The Commission agreed to adopt the recommended texts on “acceptance with specified deviations”, in respect of Codex Commodity Standards and Codex General Standards, as set forth in document ALINORM 74/43. The Commission also agreed to adopt the recommended amended version of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards, Regional Codex Standards, and Milk and Milk Products Standards, also set forth in ALINORM 74/43. The Commission took note of the draft format for the drawing up of declarations of acceptance or non-acceptance of Recommended Codex Commodity Standards. The view was expressed that, although the draft format appeared to have been drawn up along the right lines, the Secretariat should be given discretion to make such improvements as might appear desirable. This view was endorsed by the Commission. The Commission authorized the Secretariat to draw up appropriate similar type formats to cover Codex General Standards and Codex maximum limits for pesticide residues.
42. The Commission concurred in the recommendation of the Committee, as set forth in paragraph 30 of its report, and agreed on the following course of action:
The Secretariat should prepare a paper containing the different views and reasons for them, as contained in the report of the Committee's fourth session, on the question of establishing criteria for drawing a line of demarcation between meaningful acceptance and non-acceptance;
the views of governments should be sought on the following specified points:
whether it is important to establish a line of demarcation between acceptance with specified deviations and non-acceptance;
whether it would be desirable to establish criteria for determining whether a specified deviation would be compatible with the forms of acceptance;
whether it is practicable to establish a single set of criteria which would apply to all standards, given that foods differ widely;
whether and to what extent the draft criteria suggested by the Working Party would be suitable or what other criteria governments would propose;
whether such criteria, if established, should be intended solely to provide guidance to governments or whether the Commission should be authorized to review declarations with specified deviations, on the basis of such criteria.
43. The Commission further agreed with the proposal in paragraph 36 of the Committee's report (i) that the subject of possible criteria for determining when it is appropriate to publish a recommended standard in the Codex Alimentarius would not be an urgent matter until more responses concerning the Acceptance of recommended standards had been received, and (ii) that a decision on publication would be related to the decision on inclusion of criteria for making a demarcation between acceptance and non-acceptance. The Commission decided, therefore, that this matter should be included in the questionnaire relating to demarcation criteria (see paragraph 42 of this report).
44. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Committee that (i) the Guide to the Consideration of Standards at Step 8 did not require to be amended, and (ii) that there was no need to make any changes in the existing practice in considering standards at Step 5, other than to give a trial to en bloc consideration of standards at Step 5.
45. The Commission agreed that there should be another meeting of the Committee to consider not only matters which time did not enable it to consider at its last session, but also other important items of work which the Commission, on the basis of its discussions at its current session, would wish it to consider. Amongst possible other matters, the Committee would need to discuss the following.
The question of a Code of Ethics for the international trade in food and the question of whether the General Standard for Food, suitably amended, might serve the same purpose as a Code of Ethics.
The question of criteria for drawing a line of demarcation between meaningful and non-meaningful acceptance, in connection with “acceptance with specified deviation”.
The matters contained in the paper which the French delegation had prepared for the last session of the Codex Committee on General Principles, but which could not be considerred for lack of time, and
the question which had been raised by the delegation of Denmark in its paper for the last session of the Committee concerning the “name and description laid down in the standard” in paragraph 4 A(i)(b) of the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius.
46. As regards the French paper referred to in paragraph 45(iii) above, it was agreed that this paper should be sent out for government comments well in advance of the next session of the Committee. Several delegations considered that the subject of “multiple quality standards” or grade standards, which was put forward for consideration in the French paper, should not be a subject for discussion on the grounds that standards of that kind would involve a substantial rewrite of the acceptance procedure and that other more important matters to be considered, referred to earlier, were such as to require all of the time of the Committee at its next session.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
47. 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.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Table Olives at Step 8
48. The Commission considered the above standard which was contained in Appendix V of ALINORM 74/21 and ALINORM 74/21-Corrigendum. The representative of the IOOC and the delegate of the U.S.A. (acting on behalf of the Chairman of the Joint Codex/IOOC Meeting), with the assistance of the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Codex/IOOC Meeting, acted as Rapporteurs. The Commission accepted the proposal of the Joint Codex/IOOC Meeting that there be included in the publication Containing the standard, if adopted at Step 8, the higher quality classes of the IOOC commercial standard for table olives, which would not form part, in any way, of the Codex standard (para 47 of ALINORM 74/21 refers). Thus there was no question of introducing quality classes in a Codex Standard.
49. The Commission noted that most amendments to the standard proposed by governments were either editorial or minor in nature and served to clarify the standard. The Commission noted, from the written comments of Italy, that Italy did not wish to persist in its reservation concerning the provision relating to the packing of two or more adjacent size groups in the same container (presentation as “mixed sizes”). The Commission did not think it necessary to amend the standard in accordance with the proposal of Greece that the term “mixed sizes” be replaced by the term “unsized”. The Commission considered the further Greek proposal that an additional paragraph “(c)” be added to section 3.6 of the standard to the effect that in some exporting countries count /kg of drained olives should be expressed according to their size without the limitations on size ranges of the olives packed provided for in sub-section 3.6(b)(ii). The Commission was not in favour of this proposal as it would be in conflict with the requirement for a certain degree of uniformity of size. The delegation of Japan was opposed to the use of benzoic acid and sorbic acid and their salts and expressed the view that the standard should not be adopted at Step 8 in the absence of sampling plans for the determination of lot acceptance.
50. The Commission adopted the proposed amendments of the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom given below. The Commission also noted and accepted the endorsement of the various sections by the Codex Committee on Food Additives, the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene and the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.
51. Sub-section 2.2.1.1 - Description of Trade Types
It was agreed to amend Annex I to Appendix V editorially to read:
"1. Green olives in brine: ........
- Treated green olives: .......
- Untreated green olives: ......."
52. Sub-section 3.5 - Table I - Defect Allowances
It was agreed to amend items (d) and (e) of the above sub-sections as follows:
“(d) Skin blemish equal to or greater than 1/6 of the surface area, by visual estimation
(e) Internal damage (other than dacus damage) equal to or greater than 1/8 of the volume, by visual estimation”
and to move the trade type “Treated olives darkened by oxidation” to the first column of Table I - Defect allowances with the trade type “Green olives”, as these two trade types were prepared from essentially the same raw materials.
53. Sub-section 3.6 - Uniformity of size - whole olives
It was agreed to modify paragraph (a) as follows:
“(a) the average count per kilogramme (count per pound) .......”
54. Section 5 - Hygiene
The Commission adopted the amendment proposed by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene as follows:
“5.1 It is recommended that the products processed by heat, covered by the provisions of this standard, and packed in hermetically sealed containers be prepared in accordance with the Recommended International Code of Hygienic Practice for Canned Fruit and Vegetable Products (Ref. CAC/RCP 2-1969) and products not processed by heat be prepared in accordance with the Recommended International Code of Practice - General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1-1969).
5.2 Unaltered.
5.3 When tested by appropriate methods of sampling and examination the product:
- shall be free from pathogenic micro-organisms;
- shall not contain any substances originating from micro-organisms in amounts which may represent a hazard to health.
5.4 Olives preserved by heat sterilization (as in Treated Olives Darkened by Oxidation) shall have received a processing treatment sufficient both in time and temperature to destroy all spores of Clostridium botulinum.”
55. Section 9 - Methods of Analysis and Sampling
It was agreed that a note be inserted in this section indicating that methods for the determination of food additives were still to be elaborated. In addition, the Commission adopted the editorial amendments given below:
Sub-section 9.1.2 - Salt content of brine
Potentiometric Titration Method
Reference: Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists Vol. 54,
No. 2, March 1971, 32.AO1-32.AO5.
Sub-section 9.1.3 - Acidity 1)
Transfer 25 ml of the brine by pipette to a 250 ml conical flask and add a few
drops of phenolphthalein indicator. Titrate the solution with O.lN sodium hydroxide
solution until a permanent pink colour persists on shaking. The sodium
hydroxide solution may be standardized against dried A.R. grade potassium hydrogen
phthalate, and any necessary factor applied.
1 ml 0.lN NaOH = 0.0090 g lactic acid
Sub-section 9.1.4 - pH Determination 1)
Set up and adjust a pH meter and the glass and calomel electrodes according to
the manufacturer's operating instructions for use at 20°C. Calibrate the instrument
with a recognized buffer solution of pH 4.0 at 20°C. Rinse the electrodes
free from buffer solution with copious amounts of distilled water. Dip the electrode
into the sample contained in a beaker and adjusted to 20°C. Read the pH
to the nearest 0.05 units.
1) Note: the presence of acidic food additives affect the interpretation of the results.
56. It was noted that some of the editorial amendments proposed by the United Kingdom (see ALINORM 74/40) related to methods which had not been endorsed and agreed that these amendments should be referred to the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling for consideration.
Adoption of the Draft Standard for Table Olives at Step 8
57. The Commission adopted as a Recommended Standard the Draft Standard for Table Olives at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Reconsideration of the Draft Standards for Raisins and Canned Mandarin Oranges at Step 8
58. The Commission had before it for reconsideration at Step 8 the above-mentioned draft standards which were contained in Appendices VI and VII respectively of ALINORM 74/20.
Draft Standard for Raisins
59. The Rapporteur (Mr. G.R. Grange, U.S.A.) informed the Commission that as yet the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables had not been able to agree on suitable sampling plans for this product. The Committee had reconsidered the draft standard, in accordance with the wishes of the Commission (ALINORM 72/35, para 130), with particular reference to the section on food additives.
60. The delegation of Spain drew attention to an error in translation in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 2.1 of the Spanish version of the Standard (Malaga, Muscatel raisins), the details of which had been communicated in writing to the Secretariat. The Commission was informed that the Committee had reconsidered the level of 1,500 mg/ kg of sulphur dioxide and, noting that its use was confined to bleached raisins which were in turn used mostly in bakery products, the amount of SO2 remaining in the product going to the consumer would be very much lower. The level proposed had subsequently been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives. The delegations of Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany considered that the level was too high and requested that the level be reduced to 1000 mg/kg. The delegation of Poland proposed that the level should be reduced to 500 mg/kg. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that if SO2 were used it should be declared as such on the label.
61. The delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan both stated that they were against the use of mineral oil in the standard. It was pointed out that the mineral oil, for which strict specifications had been drawn up by the Expert Committee on Food Additives, was used to ensure that the product was free-flowing and that the oils used had all been very carefully evaluated from the toxicological point of view. The Commission agreed to leave the standard unchanged in respect of SO2 and mineral oil. The Commission however agreed to amend editorially the draft standard in accordance with the written comments of the delegation of the United Kingdom (ALINORM 74/40).
Adoption of the Draft Standard for Raisins at Step 8
62. The Commission adopted as a Recommended Standard the Draft Standard for Raisins at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Draft Standard for Canned Mandarin Oranges
63. The Commission was informed that the Committee had reconsidered the standard in accordance with the decision of the Commission at its Ninth Session (ALINORM 72/35, para 143), particularly with regard to a number of amendments of substance submitted by the delegation of Japan. These amendments had related mainly to sizing but also affected other parts of the draft standard, and the Committee had agreed to incorporate the amendments in the standard.
64. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that they were opposed to the use of methyl cellulose; could only agree to the drained weight for whole segments being 55% and for broken segments being 58%, if it was related to the minimum weight and not the average weight; and wished to have the ingoing weight of the fruit declared in addition to the net weight.
Adoption of the Draft Standard for Canned Mandarin Oranges at Step 8
65. The Commission adopted as a Recommended Standard the Draft Standard for Canned Mandarin Oranges at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Consideration of the Proposed Amendments to the Recommended International Standards for Canned Peaches (Ref.No. CAC/RS 14-1969) and Canned Tomatoes (Ref. No. CAC/RS 13-1969) at Step 8 Canned Peaches
66. The Commission had before it the amendments as proposed in ALINORM 74/20, Appendices IV and V. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling had endorsed the labelling provisions of the amendment for canned peaches which were as follows:
“6.2 List of ingredients
6.2.1 If ascorbic acid is added to preserve colour, its presence shall be declared in the list of ingredients or elsewhere on the label in this manner: “Ascorbic acid added as an anti-oxidant”.”
67. The Commission also noted that some delegations had objected to the inclusion of the words “or elsewhere” as they considered that it might prejudice the eventual solution of the overall problem by the Committee, which was to decide where and how the declaration of the various classes of additives should be declared on the label.
68. Several delegations pointed out that there was a lack of consistency in this type of provision in a number of standards and that the inclusion of the words “or elsewhere” allowed for even more deviations.
69. The delegation of Canada proposed that the amendment be revised to read as follows:
“If ascorbic acid is added to preserve colour, its presence shall be declared in the list of ingredients as ascorbic acid.”
70. The Commission agreed to this revision, but expressed the view that it should not be considered as a precedent for other standards. The Commission agreed that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling should look further into the matter of how ingredients should be declared on the label at its next session.
Adoption of the Proposed Amendment to the Recommended International Standard for Canned Peaches
71. The Commission adopted the above modified Amendment at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Canned Tomatoes
72. With regard to the proposed amendment to the Recommended International Standard for Canned Tomatoes, the delegation of Italy stated that they were opposed to the use of firming agents. The delegation of Senegal expressed its concern at the amount of the maximum level of use of the various calcium salts permitted in this product and felt that their use should be further limited.
Adoption of the Proposed Amendment to the Recommended International Standard for Canned Tomatoes
73. The Commission adopted the above amendment at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Canned Mature Processed Peas at Step 5
74. The Commission agreed to advance the above draft standard to Step 6 of the Procedure.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
75. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the U.S.A.
76. The Commission had before it the report of the Tenth Session of the above Committee. The 11th Session had taken place in Washington from 10–14 June 1974 and the report did not contain items for action at the present session of the Commission. The Rapporteur (Mr. L. Beacham, U.S.A.) introduced the following items for consideration by the Commission.
Revision of the General Principles of Food Hygiene
77. The Commission was asked to give its approval to the revision of the General Principles of Food Hygiene (Ref. No. CAC/RCP 1-1969). As recorded in the report of the Tenth Session (para 83), the Committee had decided to request this revision considering especially that it was necessary to deal with the problem of the disposal of foods unfit for human consumption.
78. The delegation of France pointed out that there was a general problem of terminology throughout the Committees dealing with hygiene and that there was a need for harmonization of the meaning of such terms as pollution, contamination, etc.
79. The Commission, in agreeing that the recision of the General Principles of Food Hygiene be undertaken, considered that the proposal of the French delegation should be taken into account at the same time and that a glossary of terms be developed.
Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Quick Frozen Fruits, Vegetables and their Juices
80. The other item arising from the report of the Tenth Session of the Committee (paragraphs 84 and 85) was the question of what action to take regarding the above Code. The Commission had decided at its Eighth Session (1971) to retain the code at Step 8 of the Procedure until such time as the Technological Code of Practice for Quick Frozen Foods had been finalized.
81. The Commission decided to discuss this item further when the report of the Eighth Session of the Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on the Standardization of Quick Frozen Foods was considered.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
82. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX. 10 that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the U.S.A.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Cocoa (Cacao) Beans, Cocoa (Cacao) Nibs, Cocoa (Cacao) Mass, Cocoa Press Cake and Cocoa Dust (Cocoa Fines) for use in the Manufacture of Cocoa and Chocolate Products at Step 8
83. The Commission had before it the report of the Tenth Session of the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate (ALINORM 74/10) which contained the above draft standard.
84. The Chairman of the Committee (Mr. J. Ruffy, Switzerland) informed the Commission that the draft standard had reached this stage after 10 years of deliberation and considered that even though there were several changes to be made in the text these should not affect acceptance at Step 9.
85. During the discussion of the standard, some delegations representing the primary producing countries and the observer of the International Cocoa Trade Federation, drew the Commission's attention to the following difficulties which the above standard raised in relation to international trade in cocoa beans:
the standard would exclude a significant volume of cocoa beans of certain quality moving in commerce which did not comply fully with all the provisions of the standard. This would represent a considerable economic loss to the producing countries; the standard was, therefore, too stringent;
the provision for moisture content of 7.5% did not represent levels actually observed in a raw commodity which showed a considerable variation due to environmental humidity, degree in ventilation of the beans and other causes; recent data showed that 8% would be more realistic;
the count of mouldy beans depended on humidity and the count provided for in the standard was, therefore, too restrictive;
insect control depended on the use of appropriate pesticides leaving residues on the cocoa bean; difficulties were experienced in controlling insects, and therefore insect damage, adequately in view of current pressures to lower pesticide residue limits;
long periods of shipment and storage were conducive to damage of the beans in the light of the various quality provisions of the standard and this was not controllable by the producing countries.
In addition to the reasons contained in (a) to (e) above, the delegation of the U.S.A. drew the Commission's attention to the fact that the standard did not cover unfermented beans which represented a considerable trade and which were used in the preparation of cocoa products which were intended to have particular flavouring nuances. This would be another reason for reconsideration of the standard.
86. Other delegations expressed their objection to certain treatment additives, especially phosphoric acids and phosphates and ammonium salts, and further considered that the list of additives was unduly long and that not all additives were technologically justified. As regards acids used to neutralize the alkalis employed during processing, it was considered that these should be expressed on a fat-free basis. The levels proposed should be reconsidered by the Committee. Objection was also raised to the use of magnesium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide and potassium bicarbonate and it was said that the level for phosphoric acid was considered ten times higher than required by good manufacturing practice. As regards the section on contaminants, data presented to the Commission (see Appendix to ALINORM 74/40 - Addendum 4) indicated that, while the levels of lead and arsenic could be reduced to 1 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg respectively, the level for copper might have to be raised to 60 mg/kg. It was considered by some delegations that the provision for copper was not essential for inclusion in the standard and could be deleted. With regard to methods of analysis, some delegations suggested that, while atomic absorption methods were acceptable for the determination of copper and lead, provision should continue to be made for the classical methods.
87. On the suggestion of some delegations, the Commission discussed the possibility of separating the standard for cocoa beans from the rest of the products covered by the standard and of advancing that part of the standard which covered cocoa nib, mass, press cake, and dust to Step 9 as it appeared to be non-controversial. While this suggestion found some support, the Commission agreed with the view that the standard should not be separated as the quality of the beans influenced the quality of the semi-processed products derived therefrom.
88. The question was raised as to whether, in the light of paragraph 2 of the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius, the Commission should elaborate standards for raw and semi-processed products. It was agreed that, in this particular case, the elaboration of such standards was justified as it was indispensable to ensure that the finished product was acceptable both from a point of view of quality and safety.
89. It was pointed out by the secretariat that the part of the standard for cocoa beans was based on the FAO Model Ordinance prepared by the FAO Study Group on Cocoa whose recommended norms had been included in the Export Marketing Regulations of several primary producing countries. Although the standards had been under study for ten years, there had been little representation from the producing countries and the FAO Study Group had changed the moisture limit on several occasions. The Commission considered that these matters should be looked into closely so that the norms for cocoa beans take into account the points which the producing countries had brought to the notice of the Commission. In all probability, the FAO Model Ordinance would require amendment and the Secretariat was requested to take up this matter with the FAO Study Group.
90. There was some discussion as to whether the whole standard should be held at Step 8 so as to leave time for the Model Ordinance to be reviewed, but the delegation of Switzerland pointed out that this would leave it with the Commission and that it were better returned to the Committee until further consideration had been given.
Status of the Draft Standard
91. The Commission decided that the entire standard should be returned to Step 7. Producing countries were requested to send relevant data to the Secretariat so that the FAO Study Group and subsequently the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate could reconsider the standard.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
92. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Switzerland.
Consideration of the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Raspberries at Step 8
93. The Commission had before it the above standard which was contained in ALINORM 74/25, Appendix III. The Rapporteur, who was the Chairman of the Joint Group of Experts, Mr. T. van hiele (Netherlands), reviewed the various government comments at Step 8 on the draft standard. In addition, the Commission was informed that there were some typographical errors in the draft standard. These were specifically:
in sub-section 3.3.5.2 Tolerances for Visual Defects - Table I, the heading should read “Defect” Categories instead of “Direct” Categories;
in sub-section 3.3.7 - Lot Acceptance for Quality Criteria, which should deal with lot acceptance and not repeat the definition of a “defective”. The amended text is as follows:
“a lot is considered acceptable for Quality Criteria when the number of “defectives”, as defined in paragraph 3.3.6, does not exceed the acceptance number (c) for the appropriate sample size of the Sampling Plans for Prepackaged Foods (AQL-6.5), Ref. No. CAC/RM 42-1969. In applying the lot acceptance procedure, a “defective” for “free-flowing” is treated individually and in addition to the allowance for other product characteristics.”
and finally,
in sub-section 8.3.2 - Drained Berry Ingredient, the standard sample unit should read “300 grammes” instead of “500 grammes”.
94. The Chairman informed the commission that the delegation of Austria had, in their written comments, expressed some concern that the rather extensive sampling plan and very differentiated requirements as to “defects” had been adopted. The delegation of Austria considered that the section relating to “defects” should be revised as it took the view that such criteria were outside the framework of a food standard and should rather be the subject of trade or other agreements. The Chairman of the Joint Group of Experts pointed out that the standards were for the purpose, inter alia, of facilitating international trade and for this reason a detailed section on “defects” was necessary.
95. The delegation of the United States requested that the defect tolerances for “completely uncoloured” berries be changed from the category “Serious” to the category “major”, because of the increase in mechanical harvesting of this product and the resulting difficulties in control. The Commission decided, however, to maintain the existing text of the standard.
96. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that, although they could agree in principle to sub-section 2.2 - Process Definition, they felt that to insert in the standards figures which could not be sustained as guaranteeing that the product would be maintained at a low temperature during transportation, storage and distribution was wrong. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany considered that these Provisions should be reflected in the Code of Practice and that the basic temperatures should be Clarified first. The Chairman of the Joint Group of Experts pointed out that even if a specific temperature was to be included in the standard the problem of agreed methodology for determining the temperature had not yet been resolved and was still being examined.
97. The delegation of Italy stated that they did not consider that the test for the determination of mineral impurities was the best available, as the use of hydrochloric acid was only valid for silicate type sand and not for sand of calciferous origin. The delegation of the United States considered that the allowance of 0.5% m/m for mineral impurities was too high and proposed that it should be lowered to 0.02% m/m in view of the fact that raspberries grown in the United States are grown on upright canes and have very little exposure to sand or silt. The Commission decided, however, to maintain the existing text of the standard in view of its world-wide scope.
Adoption of the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Raspberries at Step 8
98. The Commission adopted as a Recommended Standard the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Raspberries at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Consideration of the Draft Code of Practice for the Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Foods at Step 8
99. The Commission had before it the above Draft Code as contained in ALINORM 74/25, Appendix V. The Chairman of the Joint Group of Experts recalled the background to this Code and that it was intended to cover all quick frozen products. It was explained that the purpose of the Code was to try to guarantee that the quality of the products would be good when they reached the consumer and that the provisions of the Code were deliberately drafted in broad terms to cover the wide range of quick frozen food commodities.
100. The Commission noted that the delegation of the Netherlands, whilst considering that the Code was a good guide, felt that it had left open a problem for inspectors who might be confronted with a situation where a product did not fulfil certain requirements as outlined in the Code, but did meet the quality requirements laid down in the standard for the product. In the opinion of the Netherlands, the quality of the product was the deciding factor and they had therefore proposed an additional section (Section IX, Quality of the Product), in which indications were given to inspectors on how to proceed. This proposed additional section was set forth in ALINORM 74/40.
101. The Commission was informed that there were still problems concerning the procedure for checking temperatures during transportation, storage and distribution which had not been resolved, but that these were currently being studied by a small working Group of the Joint Group of Experts.
102. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products would be considering at its next session a Code of Practice for Frozen Fish at Step 2 which had been elaborated within the Department of Fisheries of FAO. The delegation of the United Kingdom stated that, in their opinion, this Code was compatible with the Code of Practice for the Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Foods. The Commission agreed that the Code of Practice for the Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Products should also be considered by the Codex committee on Fish and Fishery Products, to ensure that the two codes were consistent with each other, at the same time recognizing that additional or more specific requirements might require to be laid down in specific codes according to the products covered.
103. Reference was made to a similar kind of collaboration between the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene and the FAO Department of Fisheries. The way in which these three bodies worked together was the following. Initially, the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products had requested the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene to elaborate Codes of Hygienic Practice for Fish and Fishery Products. It was subsequently realized that the claboration of these Codes ran parallel to certain Codes of Technological Practice for Fish and Fishery Products which were being elaborated within the FAO Fisheries Department.
104. The Executive Committee had, in consultation with the FAO Fisheries Department, decided that the Codes of Hygienic Practice and the Codes of Technological Practice should be merged and that the combined Codes should then be examined by the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products at Step 2. The Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products would, before submitting the codes to the Commission for final adoption, refer them to the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene for endorsement of the hygiene content of the codes.
Status of the Draft Code of Practice for the Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Foods
105. The Commission decided to return the Draft Code to the Joint Group of Experts for reconsideration at Step 7 of the Procedure, in view of the fact that there were still problems which had not yet been resolved.
Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Quick Frozen Fruits, Vegetables and Their Juices
106. The above code had been held at Step 8 from an earlier session of the Commission. The Commission took note of the remarks of the 11th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene on the question of what future action ought to be taken on the Code. The Commission decided that the code should be considered by the Joint Group of Experts at its next session as it was inter-related with the Code of Practice for the Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Foods, and that the Group of Experts should advise the Commission as to how best to proceed with the two codes.
107. The Commission had before it the Report of the Second Session of the above Committee (ALINORM 74/15).
Consideration of Proposed Draft Code of Ante-Mortem and Post-Mortem Inspection of Slaughter Animals at Step 5
108. The Commission noted that the Executive Committee, at its 19th Session, had, as an exceptional measure, authorized the Secretariat to obtain government comments on the above code prior to its consideration at Step 5 by the Commission at its present session. Since at that time the Third Session of the Committee had been scheduled to be held within a few months of the Commission's Tenth Session, there would not have been adequate time available in the normal course to obtain and distribute government comments prior to the Committee's Third Session, and this would have delayed the progress of the work on the code. The Commission decided to advance the Code to Step 6.
109. The Commission recorded its satisfaction with the progress being made by the Committee in dealing with an extremely difficult and important subject.
Meeting Place for the Next Session of the Committee
110. The delegate of New Zealand made a brief statement with regard to the meeting place for the next session. At the first session of the Committee (April 1972) it had been suggested that at some stage the Committee might meet in New Zealand, but at that time it was not possible to indicate when this might be.
111. The question was again raised at the second session of the Committee (June 1973) and it was agreed to look into the possibilities. A circular advising governments about costs involved in participation was sent out. The replies received indicated that a meeting in New Zealand would not be fully attended. It was therefore decided that, in order to ensure sufficient participation, the venue would continue to be London.
Questionnaire on Post-Mortem Judgement of Meat
112. Commission noted that the 20th Session of the Executive Committee had considered the questionnaire on the post-mortem judgement of meat drawn up by FAO/WHO. It noted that the Executive Committee felt that the covering letter to the questionnaire issued by the FAO Animal Production and Health Division did not set out in full the purposes to which the information to be gathered by the questionnaire would be put. A note should be prepared on this matter by the appropriate Technical Divisions of FAO and WHO, and should be made available to Codex Contact Points and also brought to the attention of the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene at its next session.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
113. 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.
114. The Commission had before it the Report of the Seventh Session of the above Committee (ALINORM 74/17). The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany, which hosts the Committee, acted as Rapporteur.
Consideration of Draft Descriptions of Cutting Methods of Commercial Units Moving in International Trade of Beef, Veal, Lamb and Mutton, and Pork A - Carcases, Halves, Sides and Quarters; B - Pistolas (ALINORM 74/17, Appendices IV A and B)
115. The Rapporteur Pointed out that at the Seventh Session of the Committee only Part B of the original document dealing with pistolas and corresponding forequarters had been discussed. In the document before the Commission, the forequarters had been integrated in Part A. He further pointed out that at the Ninth Session of the Commission, it had been agreed to adopt Part A at Step 8 but not to advance it to Step 9 until the text on Pistol Cuts had also been adopted at Step 8 (ALINORM 72/35, Para 183).
116. It was noted that in the editing of the document some amendments which had been agreed to had not been made - e.g. the deletion of the reference to thymus gland for veal; by analogy with the removal of tails for the pistolas, the tails of carcases, sides, etc. were also to be removed.
117. For beef and veal it was often the practice to leave the kidney fat attached to the respective unit; this implied that variations had to be included for carcases, halves and quarters to this effect. It was further pointed out that in the illustration of forequarters it was not correct to outline the foreshank, since there was no provision in the variations for this part to be removed (A I/4.1). Similarly the hind shank should not be outlined in pistolas for beef and veal, and appropriate changes would have to be made in the illustrations.
Adoption of the Draft Descriptions
118. The commission agreed to adopt the revised document, amended as proposed, at Step 8 of the Procedure.
Draft System for the Description of Carcases of Bovine and Porcine Species (ALINORM 74/17, Appendix II)
119. The Commission noted that the recommendation to advance the document to Step 8 had been taken by a majority of the delegations present at the Committee's session but that some delegations present at the session had reservations about the document.
120. The Commission accepted the recommendation before it and agreed to make the following corrections and amendments in the document:
Adoption of the System for the Description of Carcases of Bovine and Porcine Species at Step 8
121. The Commission adopted the document with the above-mentioned amendments at Step 8 of the Procedure.
Consideration of Proposed Draft Codification of Carcases of the Species Ovis (ALINORM 74/17, Appendix III)
122. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany pointed out that efforts to elaborate a Draft System for the Description of Carcases of the Species Ovis in line with the System for the Description of Carcases of Bovine and Porcine Species had not met with success, as no agreement could be reached with regard to the question of maturity grouping of lamb. The Committee had therefore decided not to discuss the other provisions of the document dealing with categories of carcases and weight ranges and had retained it at Step 4 of the Procedure (ALINORM 74/17, para 70).
123. The Commission was informed that the Secretariat of the Committee had, however, continued scientific work on the use of ossification for the subdivision of lamb into age categories.
124. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany recommended that, notwithstanding the difficulties experienced by the Committee, the work on the codification of carcases should be continued in view of the importance in international trade of the meat of lambs and sheep, and in particular as a large majority of the delegates present at the Sixth and Seventh Sessions of the Committee had expressed themselves in favour of such a document.
125. In this connection, the question was raised whether this particular item would, in itself, be sufficient justification for the regular meeting of the Committee. It was further questioned whether there was sufficient reason to assume that the problems implicit in the document were capable of settlement and clarification.
126. The delegate of New Zealand, as the largest exporting country of the commodity, stated that in his view and on the basis of past experience, no further progress on the document could be expected. He also stated that great difficulty had been encountered in the question of differentiating carcases of lamb on the basis of ossification, and judging by research work done he did not expect further investigations to alter this situation substantially. The delegation of Australia supported this statement.
127. In view of the opposition of the major exporting countries to continue work on the codification of carcases of the species ovis both in the Committee and in the Commission, a suggestion to consider the possibility of continuing the elaboration of the document on a regional basis was put forward.
128. The majority view in the Commission was not to continue work on the document. The Commission requested the Secretariat to inform and consult members of the Committee on the issue, taking into account the Commission's advice (based on the opinion of Australia and New Zealand) not to continue with the work in the immediate future.
Consideration of the Summary and Analysis of Replies to the Questionnaire on the Extent of International Trade in Boneless Meat (ALINORM 74/37)
129. The Rapporteur (Dr. G. Roller of the Federal Republic of Germany) informed the Commission that the Committee had kept the question of boneless meat in abeyance until the Commission had reached a decision on this matter.
130. As requested by the Commission at its ninth session, the Secretariat, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, had sent out to Member Countries a questionnaire on the extent of international trade in boneless meat.
131. In reply to this questionnaire a number of governments had stated their position and a summary and analysis of the replies had been prepared (ALINORM 74/37).
132. The delegate of the United States pointed out that, contrary to what might be deduced from the indication in the summary document, the U.S.A. was not in favour of developing standards for boneless meat - it had taken a similar stand at earlier discussions on the subject. It did consider however that there might be some justification for codification if this was found practicable. The delegations of Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom also stated that they were not in favour of standardization of boneless meat.
133. The question was raised whether the criteria applicable to the elaboration of standards for commodities were applicable to boneless meat. It was pointed out that a number of these criteria could not be met and that in particular standardization would not provide additional protection for the consumer. In the main international trade in boneless meat was for further processing.
134. On the other hand, several delegations stressed the importance of establishing hygienic requirements for boneless meat - work which could be undertaken by the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene.
135. The delegate of Austria supported by the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany expressed the view that, as an importing country, it had an interest in having the Codex Committee on Meat elaborate a standard or code for boneless meat for further processing.
136. The Commission concluded that there did not seem to be a need to deal with standards for boneless meat in the Codex Committee on Meat. With regard to the hygienic aspects it was agreed that these should be considered by the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
137. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Meat should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Consideration of the Proposed Draft Standard for Pineapple Juice at Step 5
138. The Commission agreed to advance the above standard to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
Matters arising from the Report of the Eighth Session of the Joint Group of Experts
139. The Commission was informed that the Joint Group of Experts had adopted a revised approach to all the grape juice standards. The Group had agreed to re-edit both the standards for single strength and concentrated Labrusca type grape juices, to include Vinifera type grape juices and to make only two standards for unsweetneed products, one for single strength grape juices and the other for concentrated grape juices. In addition, the Group had agreed, in order to provide for the addition of sugar to the concentrated Labrusca type grape juices in retail containers, that there should be a standard for “sweetened Labrusca type concentrated grape juice”.
140. The Group had requested the Executive Committee to consider whether the latter standard could be considered to be at Step 6 of the Procedure, in view of the fact that most of its criteria had already been examined by governments.
141. The Group had also decided, in the light of the above-mentioned proposals, to request the Commission to nullify the two standards for the single strength and the concentrated Vinifera type grape juices, which had been held at Step 8 of the procedure at the Ninth Session of the Commission.
142. The Commission, noting that the Executive Committee had endorsed the request of the Joint Group of Experts that the Draft standard for Sweetened Labrusca Type Grape Juice be regarded as being at Step 6, agreed to endorse the request of the Joint Group of Experts that the Draft Standards for Vinifera Type Grape Juice and Vinifera Type Concentrated Grape Juice, which it had held at Step 8 of the Procedure at its Ninth Session, be nullified.
143. The Commission noted that the Joint Group of Experts would be submitting in due course revised standards to cover the above-mentioned products.
