Procedure for the Acceptance of Codex Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues
144. In introducing the above subject, the Secretariat drew the Commission's attention to two major decisions of the Codex Committee on General Principles, (a) that the special nature of the problem of laying down international maximum limits for pesticide residues required a separate acceptance procedure which allowed for an acceptance limited to imports and (b) that acceptance with deviations was not appropriate to maximum limits as such form of acceptance was tantamount to non-acceptance. The Commission noted that the Executive Committee, at its 20th session, had considered the new proposed acceptance procedure and had found it acceptable.
145. The Commission adopted unanimously the Procedure for the Acceptance of Codex Maximum Limits set forth in document ALINORM 74/43, as paragraph 6 of the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius.
Consideration of the Report of the Seventh Session of the Committee
146. Dr. P. Berben, head of the Netherlands delegation, acted as Rapporteur and introduced, on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee, Ir. A.J. Pieters, the report of the Committee and expressed the hope that the new acceptance procedure for Codex maximum limits for pesticide residues as adopted by the Commission, together with the possibility of non-acceptance and the provision for statements that a food would not be prohibited from circulation, would facilitate discussions within the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.
147. The Commission's attention was drawn to a recommendation of the Committee that a Joint FAO/WHO Conference on Pesticide Residues be convened to discuss, inter alia, problems related to pesticide residues and the relationship between the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues and the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues. The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues had also made suggestions for items to be included in the agenda of such a Joint Conference. The Commission was further informed that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues had proposed certain changes to Codex maximum limits for pesticide residues at Step 9 and to limits held at Step 8 by the Ninth Session of the Commission. The Rapporteur expressed the hope that these changes would be accepted by the Commission.
148. As a general rule, the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues recommended maximum limits for specific commodities. The possibility was, however, being explored to recommend, where feasible, limits for groups of commodities. In this respect, the delegation of the U.S.A. was assisting the Committee in drawing up a classification of foods on the basis of pesticide residue potential.
149. The Committee was also considering a document dealing with “Guidelines for the use of pesticides” which had been submitted to governments for comments. The Committee would be continuing its work on sampling procedures to check compliance of lots of food commodities with Codex maximum limits.
150. The Rapporteur drew the Commission's attention to the omission of a sentence in the report of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues whereby countries were invited to carry out total diet studies to estimate the actual intake of pesticide residues and to supply the results to FAO/WHO and to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.
151. On the suggestion of the Rapporteur, the Commission agreed to use Conference Room Document LIM.1 1 as a basis for discussions as this document presented the recommendations for pesticide residue limits according to Steps of the Procedure rather than according to substances, a procedure followed in Appendix II of ALINORM 74/24.
Changes proposed by the Seventh Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues to Codex Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues at Step 9 of the Procedure
152. The Commission had before it a number of recommendations at Step 9 of the Procedure and changes to them proposed by the Seventh Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues. It noted that some changes, as indicated by an asterisk in the document, were not substantive and in adopting them agreed with the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues that these changes would not require to be piloted through the Codex Amendment Procedure. As regards those changes which were substantive, the Commission decided that they should be sent to governments for comment in accordance with the Guide to the Procedure for the Revision and Amendment of Recommended Codex Standards. The Commission decided that “rice” should be designated as “rice in husk” in the standards.
Consideration of Codex Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues at Step 8 of the Procedure
153. The Rapporteur introduced the amendments proposed by governments at Step 8. The Commission noted that some of the recommendations at Step 8 were those held by the previous session and that governments had an opportunity to present their written amendments. Other recommendations were new proposals by the Seventh Session of the Committee.
154. The delegation of the United Kingdom raised some general points that Codex maximum limits should be expressed to one significant figure, that limits for pesticide residues for meat should be reconsidered as to whether they should be expressed on a fat basis or on the whole product, and that in the absence of a suitable method of analysis for dichloroacetaldehyde this substance should not be incorporated in the tolerance figures for dichlorvos. It was pointed out that the accuracy of the figures depended on the precision of the method of analysis and should be expressed within this limit. The Commission considered that these latter remarks should be brought to the attention of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.
155. The Rapporteur was of the opinion that, in commenting on the recommendations of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, governments should give reasons for their disagreement so as to enable delegations and eventually the Committee to judge the objections. As regards the recommendations at Step 8, the Commission noted the various comments submitted by governments in writing and particularly the objection to some of the limits for chlordane, carbaryl, methyl-parathion, diazinon, dioxathion, fenchlorfos, parathion and quintozene, as well as the fundamental objection of the Canadian delegation to quintozene on the basis of inadequate toxicology and metabolism data.
156. The delegation of Sudan pointed out that in many countries of Africa there were inadequate food control facilities to ensure that foods complied with the limits recommended by the Commission and that they were not in a position to comment on the suitability or otherwise of Codex recommendations for pesticide residues. It was also pointed out that the help of international and other organizations was very much needed in this field. They expressed the hope that in the future these countries would be able to contribute more actively to the work of the Commission in this field. The delegation of Cuba stated that, at the present time, it could neither be in favour nor against the proposed limits, as it did not yet have the results of the studies being carried out by various food control and investigation centres in their country but it was prepared to cooperate with the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues when the results of these studies were available. It was pointed out that, as far as possible, data from the developing parts of the world were taken into account by the Joint FAO/ WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues. The delegation of Senegal drew the Commission's attention to the importance for many developing countries of the use of pesticides in accordance with good agricultural practice. The Senegalese delegation stated that attention was being paid in their national legislation to the question of the level, authorization, importation and use of certain pesticides.
157. The delegation of the U.S.A. indicated that they fully supported the objectives of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Therefore, the U.S.A. would strive to give “full acceptance” to as many as possible of the proposed maximum limits recommended by the Commission. The Commission was further informed that it was U.S. policy that, where Codex maximum limits differed from established U.S. limits, the U.S.A. would review each proposal from the standpoint of determining whether changes could be made to the U.S. Pesticide Residues Regulations. In all cases, where possible, action would be initiated to make the US Pesticide Residue Regulations consistent with the Codex proposals. Where the U.S.A. could not accept the Codex proposals for reasons of Good Agricultural Practice or for human health reasons, the reasons for their non-acceptance and data on which such decisions were based would be fully set forth.
158. The delegation of the U.S.A. also indicated that they supported the principle which allowed a country in accepting a Codex maximum residue limit to apply such limits to imports only while prohibiting or restricting the use of pesticides domestically. They considered that it was important to recognize that the establishment of a maximum limit for a pesticide residue and the registration of the pesticide for use were two related but separate actions.
159. Other delegations drew attention to their written observations which indicated that they would follow similar procedures to those outlined by the delegation of the U.S.A. in allowing foods complying with the Codex limits to circulate freely within their territory whilst possibly not permitting the use of the pesticides concerned domestically.
160. The delegation of Belgium was of the opinion that it was important to verify the safety of the recommended maximum limits for pesticide residues in the light of the possible intake of residues. The representative of WHO informed the Commission that such studies were being carried out by WHO and the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.
161. The delegation of the Netherlands was of the opinion that the limits for hexachlorobenzene should not be advanced to Step 9 in view of the fact that the 1973 Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues had withdrawn the temporary ADI for this substance.
Status of the Draft Codex Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues at Step 8
162. Noting the various comments raised by governments during the session and their written comments, the Commission decided to advance the above maximum residue limits to Step 9 of the Procedure with the exception of the limits for hexachlorobenzene, the limits for orthophenylphenol in carrots, quintozene in potatoes, which should be returned to Step 6, and those limits where the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues recommended that they be returned to another appropriate Step in the Procedure. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany pointed out that, in their written comments, they had expressed further reservations concerning the use of certain pesticides and the establishment of certain maximum limits.
163. The Commission also adopted the changes proposed by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues to those maximum residue limits which were held at Step 8 by its 9th Session.
Consideration of Codex Maximum Residue Limits submitted to the Commission at Step 5 with the recommendation that Steps 6,7 and 8 be omitted
164. The Rapporteur introduced the above recommendations and indicated the various amendments which had been proposed by governments in writing. Some delegations were of the opinion that the limits for dichlorvos and heptachlor were not acceptable and should, therefore, not be advanced to Step 9 omitting steps. The delegation of France expressed its reservation concerning the omission of Steps 6 and 7, especially concerning dichlorvos and heptachlor. The Commission accepted the editorial amendment of the United Kingdom to the limit for dichlorvos in miscellaneous food items as follows: “Footnote: the tolerance is intended to cover residues resulting from the use of dichlorvos in storage in warehouses, shops, etc.”
Status of the Draft Codex Maximum Pesticide Residue Limits at Step 5
165. The Commission agreed to the omission of Steps 6 and 7 and adopted the limits at Step 8 of the Procedure with the amendment indicated above.
Codex Maximum Pesticide Residue Limits at Step 5
166. The Commission decided to advance the remaining maximum limits at Step 5 to Step 6 of the Procedure.
Proposed Joint FAO/WHO Conference on Pesticides
167. The Commission discussed the recommendation of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues that a Conference on Pesticides be held and that such a conference be convened jointly by FAO and WHO to discuss problems relating to pesticide residues (see para 147 above). The delegation of Canada concurred with the recommendation of the Codex Committee, stressing the importance of holding such a conference. They also expressed the opinion that work on pesticide residues was of great importance and that FAO and WHO should take steps to ensure adequate staffing of their relevant programmes dealing with questions of pesticide residues. The Commission noted that in working document ALINORM 74/34 (Part III) WHO had indicated that steps were being taken to ensure that WHO would participate in holding a joint conference. The representative of the Plant Protection Service of FAO informed the Commission that all efforts would be made in convening a Joint FAO/WHO Conference on Pesticides which would consider the question of residues but indicated that, in view of other pressing problems relating to pesticides such as the current shortage in these chemicals and other matters, the conference would either have to address itself to broader issues than so far envisaged, or it might be necessary to postpone the conference to enable FAO to urgently convene smaller expert bodies to deal with these pressing questions. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues concerning the importance of holding a Joint FAO/WHO Conference on Pesticides.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
168. 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.
169. The Commission had before it the reports of the Seventh and Eighth Sessions of the above Committee (ALINORM 74/18 plus 74/18A). At the Ninth Session of the Commission some matters of interest emerged from the Seventh Session of the Committee and had already been brought to the attention of the Commission. Dr. O. R. Braekkan (Norway), Chairman of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, acted as Rapporteur.
Draft Standard for Canned Tuna and Bonito in Water or Oil at Step 8
(ALINORM 74/18, Appendix VI)
170. The Chairman of the Committee pointed out that the agreement reached on the above group standard would not satisfy everybody, but being the result of a concerted effort of compromise, should be considered a workable solution. The standard would, moreover, serve during the acceptance stage to obtain information on the different species included in the standard. At a later stage, the Committee might review and expand the product definition of the standard to include further species enumerated in acceptance statements by governments. This referred in particular to certain species which had been proposed at the Seventh Session of the Committee, but on which the Committee had received very limited background information.
171. The delegations of France and Portugal reiterated their reservations expressed during the Seventh Session of the Committee with regard to the use of the term bonitotuna as provided for in provision 6.1 - Name of the Food. They held the view that there should be a correlation between the common name and the scientific name of the fish. The delegation of Senegal supported this opinion.
172. The delegation of Japan also held the view that sub-section 2.1 - Product Definition and 6.1 - Name of the Food were not compatible. It further thought it desirable to have specific descriptions of white meat, light meat, dark meat and blends which descriptive terms could, according to the labelling provisions of the standard, qualify or accompany the name of the food.
173. The delegate of the U.S.A. stated that, although the standard did not fully reflect the U.S. standpoint, his Government was satisfied with the compromise achieved. The delegations of Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom also indicated their support of the present standard.
174. The Commission agreed with a recommendation of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, which was moreover also supported by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, to request governments, when considering the standard for acceptance, to indicate details of the names which applied to the various species (ALINORM 74/18, para 35). This was considered a desirable measure as in different parts of the world the names tuna and bonito were applied to different species.
175. In this connection, it was also proposed that, taking into account that the organoleptic criteria were probably the most important criteria to the consumer, guidelines should be laid down for the names for use by the individual countries. It was noted that this question was also applicable to other fish products such as sardines.
176. The Commission noted that in the labelling section under lot identification the word ‘cannery’ had been replaced by ‘producing factory’.
Status of the Standard for Canned Tuna and Bonito in Water or Oil
177. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard for Canned Tuna and Bonito in Water or Oil at Step 8 of the Procedure as a Recommended Standard. The delegation of Japan reserved its position with regard to the advancement of the standard.
Consideration of Proposed Draft Standards for Quick Frozen Fillets of Hake and Quick Frozen Shrimps and Prawns at Step 5
178. The Commission considered at Step 5 of the Procedure the above documents contained in ALINORM 74/18, Appendix V and ALINORM 74/18A, Appendix III, respectively, and decided to advance the standards to Step 6.
Codes of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products
179. As decided by the Executive Committee at its 18th Session (ALINORM 72/3) and in consultation with the FAO Fisheries Department, codes of hygienic practice under elaboration by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene were to be merged with codes of technological practice elaborated by the FAO Fisheries Department, subsequent to consideration by the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products. The hygiene provisions in the codes would be presented to the Hygiene Committee for endorsement. At the Ninth Session of the Committee (October 1974) two combined codes would be considered at Step 3 and three codes at Step 2.
180. The Chairman of the Committee expressed his gratitude to the FAO Fisheries Department for the work done so far and pointed out that the work of the Committee on codes would be accelerated as much as possible in order that in specific fish and fishery products standards reference could be made to the codes with regard to handling, transport, etc., thus avoiding overlapping and repetition in the various standards. Where necessary, specific provisions of the codes could be further quoted in full in the standards (see also paras 102–104).
Metallic Contaminants
181. At the Seventh Session of the Committee, a review of the work of the Joint FAO/ WHO Expert Committee on Examination of Certain Food Additives and the Contaminants, Mercury, Lead and Cadmium had been given. In particular, it could be noted that the Expert Committee had concluded that with regard to contaminants, consideration should be given to the diet and not to specific foods, except in the case of very heavy pollution. The Chairman of the Committee stated that this implied that the setting of limits for contaminants in standards could be avoided. It further implied that there would be no need to include methods of analysis for the contaminants in the standards which might lead to discrimination. It was hoped, the Chairman stated, that, should the need arise, FAO and WHO would be willing to consider similar problems also in the future.
182. At the Seventh Session of the Committee, it had been proposed that a provision for can seam quality should be included in the standards (ALINORM 74/18, para 106). As this matter was considered to be applicable to all canned food products, it was decided to bring the matter to the attention of the Commission. During the discussion, one delegation stated that the embossing of cans could weaken the protective tin or lacquer. The delegate of the U.S.A. stated that it was not just a question of the quality of the can but very much a matter of quality control practices on the part of the food processor which ensured a safe end-product. He further pointed out that the U.S.A. had recently imposed stricter quality control requirements on the canning of low acid foods, e.g. fish and vegetables. The Chairman of the Commission drew attention to the fact that ISO SC 52 dealt with all aspects of hermetically sealed metal food containers. It was agreed therefore that the Secretariat should contact ISO and other appropriate international or national bodies active in this field, and submit a report to the next session of the Commission on how the question of can seams, embossing and other related matters could best be handled.
Methods of Analysis, Sampling and Examination
183. The Committee informed the Commission that the methods of analysis listed in the Standard for Quick Frozen Shrimps and Prawns need not be endorsed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling as they were considered to be particular to the product.
184. It was pointed out to the Commission that the proposal of the Committee applied to a number of other standards. It was noted that there was an analogous case in the Standard for Canned Tuna and Bonito and that the Codex Secretariat had expressed the view that the methods listed were not, properly speaking, methods of analysis. The Commission agreed with this general point of view.
185. At the request of the delegation of Australia at the Eighth Session of the Committee, the Secretariat had prepared a paper for discussion by the Executive Committee on the question of mandatory or optional provisions relating to styles in Codex Standards, (CX/EXEC 74/20/4). The Executive Committee (ALINORM 74/4, paras 23–25) had concluded that Codex standards should embrace as far as possible all the styles of products which were known to be of significance in international trade, and therefore the listing of styles in Codex standards should be interpreted as being exclusive. In the event of a new style being developed, it would always be open to a government to propose an amendment to the standard.
186. The Executive Committee had recommended that, in future, provisions relating to styles should be expressed in standards as follows:
"The product shall be presented in one of the following styles:
- …, or
- …, or
- …."
187. The delegation of the United Kingdom stated that once a Recommended Standard had been accepted and had been incorporated in United Kingdom legislation the position of the United Kingdom with regard to the exclusive list of styles would be that it would be contrary to the law to market, or even to test market, a new styles under the name and description laid down in the standard, until such time as the law in the United Kingdom had been amended to include the new style. The United Kingdom delegation recognized that this was an internal United Kingdom problem, but it wished to draw attention to this matter as other countries might be in a similar situation. Thus in the United Kingdom view, the notion of an exclusive list of styles - even though such a list could be amended in the Recommended Standard - would inhibit the development of new styles in the United Kingdom unless, of course, the United Kingdom were to deal with the problem by way of indicating a deviation in this regard, on being asked to accept the standard.
188. The delegation of the U.S.A. stated that the sort of problem which the United Kingdom would have in this regard would not be likely to arise in the U.S.A. as U.S. legislation was not so rigid that it did not make allowance for special circumstances. They regarded the listing and definition of permitted styles in a standard as a necessity for most products.
189. One delegation suggested that it would be useful to harmonize the title of the specific provision in the different standards and to use the term “presentation”. Furthermore, it was pointed out that, whereas it was one thing to have mandatory styles in the sense that when a product is labelled as being of a certain style it had to conform to the style as laid down in the standard, it was quite another to have an exclusive list of styles in the standard. The opinion was stated that, provided a product, which was presented in another style, conformed to all the provisions of the standard and was suitably labelled, then the product should be considered as conforming to the standard. Otherwise, both consumer choice and product development might be restricted.
190. The Commission agreed to adopt the recommendation made by the Executive Committee.
191. The Commission appreciated that some difficulties might arise regarding multiingredient products but it would always be open to governments to propose amendments to step 9 standards, or until such time as an amendment had been made, to specify a deviation in their acceptance.
Canned Sardines and Sardine Type Products
192. The Commission noted that progress had been made towards the elaboration of a standard on this controversial subject. The Commission was informed that, on the initiative of France, a small working group, consisting of experts from the principal countries involved in the trade in sardines and sardine type products, would meet in Nantes on an informal basis to consider the defect provisions to be proposed to the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products for discussion at the next session of the Committee.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
193. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX. 10 that the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Norway.
194. The Commission had before it the Report of the Seventh Session of the Codex Committee on Processed Meat Products (ALINORM 74/16). Dr. V. Enggaard (Denmark), Chairman of the Committee, informed the Commission on the work of the Committee.
Reconsideration of the draft Standard for Canned Corned Beef at Step 8 (ALINORM 74/16, Appendix II)
195. At its ninth session, the Commission had decided that the Draft Standard for Canned Corned Beef should be returned to Step 7 of the Procedure. The main reasons for returning the standard to Step 7 had been doubts expressed by some delegations concerning the name of the products in connection with the scope of the standard and furthere the number and extent of some of the proposed amendments.
196. The Commission had requested the Committee to review once again the standard, taking into account the opinion given by the FAO Legal Office on the question raised by the Committee with regard to the scope of the standard and also taking into consideration the views of the countries which produced corned beef which was not of the traditional south American type.
197. The Secretariat had outlined the questions concerning the draft standard arising from the report of the Seventh Session of the Committee in document ALINORM 74/41 and had listed various approaches for resolving the present difficulties. In addition to this, the Chairman of the Committee had issued a statement (ALINORM 74/41, Addendum I).
198. The Chairman of the Committee pointed out that for a number of years products of a composition quite different from the South American type traditional product had been traded under names which included the words “corned beef”. Bearing this in mind, the Committee had discussed how to exclude these products from the standard which was intended to cover the traditional South American type of corned beef only without creating a situation which might interfere with the trade in the other products. The Committee considered that a solution to these difficulties had been found by putting in the scope section both a positive and a negative provision.
199. The Commission agreed with the Commodity Committee that the standard should be restricted to cover the traditional type of South American Corned Beef only and further noted that the decision of the Committee to advance the standard to Step 8 in its present from had, for various reasons not been unanimous. Some delegations to the Committee's session had raised objections with regard to the minimum limit of 25% for protein content; other delegations had expressed misgivings with respect to the Compatibility of the revised scope section of the standard with the Codex Acceptance Procedure.
Name of the Food
200. The delegation of the United Kingdom expressed concern with regard to the provisions containing negative delineations in the scope and in the labelling secions of the standard. In particular, the clause referring to certain products not covered by the standard but nonetheless mentioned in the standard caused anxiety. They pointed out that most national food legislations would allow for some qualification of the name of a product, provided it clearly informed the consumer as to the true nature of the product or was not misleading. There seemed to be some overlap and possible cause for misunderstanding in the provision for the name of the food as it now stood. The delegation of the United Kingdom proposed therefore that the standard should not contain any reference to products outside the scope of the standard, which should be confined to the traditional South American corned beef product. If this were not to be done, then the wording should be clarified so as not to allow complete freedom to describe similar products not covered by the standard as corned beef.
201. The observer of the International Organization of Consumers Unions (IOCU), while agreeing in general with the statement of the delegation of the United Kingdom, suggested, as another possibility, that separate standards for products containing corned beef, or for other products having similar characteristics as corned beef, might be elaborated.
202. It was noted that the endorsement of the labelling section of the standard by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling had been made in the light of the present scope section, and that the Labelling Committee had restricted its attention to the labelling provisions and had not considered the scope section. The Commission further noted that, as an example of the meaning of “accompanied by a qualifying statement”, the Labelling Committee had suggested that the product might be labelled “Corned Beef with X”. It was suggested by the Labelling Committee that when the standard reached Step 9, and if it still contained this type of labelling provision, governments should be requested to indicate, when accepting the standard, details of the products which included the term ‘corned beef’ as part of their designation and cite the names of these products.
Meat content
203. The Commission noted the decision of the Codex Committee on Processed Meat Products to express the meat content as an absolute figure and not as an arithmetical mean of the sample. The majority of the Committee members had agreed to a minimum requirement of 25% protein for the final product. This would correspond to a requirement previously contained in the standard that the product following processing should represent not more than 70% by weight of the raw meat prior to cooking.
204. The delegation of the U.S.A. cited test data supporting the minimum of 25% total protein content as laid down in the standard. Other delegations cited data indicating that they considered the requirement of a minimum of 25% total protein content too high, particulary as the standard was intended to be a minimum standard. Further delegations indicated that they had obtained new data, and therefore considered that the information on which the Committee had based its proposed minimum protein content was not sufficiently representative of the product. The Commission agreed that further data should be obtained and reviewed by the Committee at its next session. Some delegations indicated a preference for an arithmetical mean rather than an absolute minimum figure because of the variability of the raw material and despite efforts to produce a uniform product a certain tolerance seemed desirable. It was further proposed that a sampling plan be developed.
205. The delegations of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany and Switzerland stated that, in their opinion, a differentiation between muscle protein and total protein content was desirable. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany, supported by the delegation of the U.S.A., further stated that they favoured a fat content in the product of 15% rather than 20%. The delegation of Canada stated that the use of head meat, as provided for in the standard, might give rise to difficulties in their country.
Status of the Draft Standard for Canned Corned Beef
206. In view of the discussions recorded above, the Commission decided to return the above standard to step 6 of the Procedure and to ask the Committee to examine once again the compositional requirements in paragraph 3.3 of the standard and also to see if the doubts which had been expressed in connection with the second part of the scope section could be accommodated, it being understood that it might be necessary to review the labelling provisions if the scope section were to be altered. Governments were urged to furnish additional analytical data, indicating the country of origin of the can, the type of product analysed and the methods used. It was also proposed that the Committee consider appending to the standard an informatory annex concerning the products excluded from the standard. The Commission Secretariat, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, was requested to issue a circular letter to Codex Contact Points seeking the above information.
207. The delegation of Sweden wished to place on record its opposition to the negative delineations in the scope and labelling sections as presently contained in the standard.
Consideration of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Processed Meat Products
208. The Commission considered at Step 5 of the Procedure, the above code, contained in Appendix VI to ALINORM 74/16 and decided to advance the code to Step 6.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
209. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Processed Meat Products should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Denmark.
Consideration of Proposed Draft Standards for Processed Foods for Infants and Children based on Cereals and for Gluten-Free Foods at Step 8
210. The Commission had before it the above two standards contained in Appendices IV and VII of ALINORM 74/26, respectively. Dr. D. Eckert of the Federal Republic of Germany, in introducing the Committee's report and the above two standards, indicated the salient points made by the Codex Committee.
211. The delegation of Nigeria drew the Commission's attention to the traditional use of certain micro-organisms in the preparation of infant foods and was of the opinion that such preparations, which are not pathogenic, should be subject to a different provision regarding total plate count than that indicated in Appendix III of ALINORM 74/26.
212. A number of delegations were strongly of the opinion that particular attention should be paid to the use of food additives in products intended for young children and should not be used in foods intended for cunsumption by infants under the age of 12 weeks.
213. In addition to the need to have fully documented justifications for the use of additives in infant foods, the delegation of Senegal pointed out that in many developing countries C.S.M. (corn, soya and milk) and soya-based foods were provided under aid programmes for special dietary purposes. In connection with the use of protein concentrates and other high protein ingredients suitable for consumption by infants and children, they felt that additional information with regard to the properties of these products should be sought from competent international organizations such as FAO, WHO and UNICEF.
214. In the opinion of the delegation of Poland, attention should not only be paid to food additives in infant foods but also to other matters such as microbiological requirements for foods intended for or consumed by infants under 12 weeks of age. In the opinion of the Polish and other delegations foods for infants of this age should receive special attention.
215. The Commission agreed that detailed comments should be sent to the Secretariat of the Codex Committee as soon as possible so that they can be considered fully by the Committee.
Status of the Proposed Draft Standards for Processed Foods for Infants and Children based on Cerals and for Gluten-Free Foods
216. The Commission decided to advance the above proposed standards to Step 6 of the Procedure. It noted that the 19th Session of the Executive Committee had authorized the Secretariat to request, exceptionally, comments from governments in view of the fact that, at the Ninth Session of the Commission, the proposed draft standard for Processed Foods for Infants and Children Based on Cereals could not, because of time factors, be considered at Step 5 of the Procedure.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
217. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
218. The Commission had before it the Report of the above Conference (Ref. ESN:MMS 74/6; WHO/Food Add./74.43). Dr. D.G. Chapman of Canada, who had been Chairman of the Conference, introduced the points which were of interest to the Commission. It was noted that the Conference had reviewed the work of the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives, including principles of toxicological evaluation, and had expressed its general satisfaction therewith. Further, it had stressed the importance of governments submitting food consumption data to FAO and WHO so that the intake of additives by man could be estimated with greater reliability. The Conference had also discussed the recommendations of the UN Conference on Human Environment (Stockholm 1972) and the followup action which had been undertaken by FAO and WHO. The Conference had also, in discussing general principles for the use of food additives, made recommendations to the Commission regarding the need to ensure that the use of additives be adequately justified. The Conference had also recommended to FAO and WHO that a similar Conference be held on the subject of pesticides (see paras 147 and 167 of this report).
219. The Commission took note of the Report of the above conference and decided to discuss the question of the justification of the use of food additives under the item dealing with the Codex Committee on Food Additives.
Matters arising from the Report of the Committee
220. The Chairman of the Committee, Dr. G.F. Wilmink (Netherlands) introduced the report of the Committee (ALINORM 74/12). He drew the Commission's attention to the difficulties the Committee encountered in endorsing the food additive provisions (which were not always clear as to whether they referred to amounts added or levels found in the whole product) and difficulties resulting from the disappearance from or interaction of the additive with the food. Furthermore, it was not clear what course of action should be taken when the deadline for the temporary endorsement of certain provisions was exceeded. He informed the Commission that the Committee had recommended that food additive provisions not subject to numerical limits should be accompanied by the phrase “Limited by Good Manufacturing Practice”. However, where possible, numerical limits were to be preferred. The Committee had published lists of additives (A and C) containing those substances which were considered suitable (A) and unsuitable (c) for use in food (Ref. CAC/FAL 1973-1). The Committee had also drawn up a working list B on which governments had been and were still being requested to comment. He indicated that lists A and C would be up-dated in the light of the conclusions contained in the reports of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. An advisory list of additives for use in “soft drinks” was being drawn up by the delegation of Canada.
221. The Committee had drawn up principles relating to the “carry-over” of food additives permitted in ingredients used in compounded foods. The Commission had been requested by the Committee to indicate how to proceed further with the elaboration of these principles.
Further Action concerning the “Carry-Over” Principle
222. The delegation of France stated that para 2(d) of Appendix III of ALINORM 74/12 was unclear. Other delegations were also of the opinion that the “carry-over” principle, and in particular para 2(d), should be reconsidered by the Committee.
223. The Commission noted that many national laws dealt with “carry-over” in accordance with the principle “de minimis non curat lex” The Commission decided that the text in Appendix III of ALINORM 74/12 should be submitted to governments for further comments. The Commission requested the Codex Committee on Food Additives to reconsider the CarryOver Principle in the light of government comments. The Commission requested the Legal Offices of FAO and WHO to examine the text when agreed upon in order to present it in an appropriate form for general application in the Codex Alimentarius.
Relationship between Codex Commodity Committees and the Codex Committee on Food Additives as regards the Justification for the Use of Food Additives
224. The Commission noted that the Third Joint FAO/WHO Conference on Food Additives and Contaminants had discussed the question of the role of the Codex Committee on Food Additives as regards the justification of the use of food additives, and had requested, through the Codex Alimentarius Commission, that the Codex Committee on Food Additives give further consideration to the technological aspects of food additives. It had also recommended that Codex Commodity Committees supply more information in justification of the need for their use.
225. The delegation of the U.S.A. was of the opinion that the decision regarding the need for an additive for an individual product should rest solely with Codex Commodity Committees which had the necessary expertise concerning the need for additives in the foods they were dealing with, whereas the Codex Committee on Food Additives should be responsible for evaluating the actual or potential intake of an additive from all sources. A number of other delegations were of the view that Codex Commodity Committees should supply the technological justification but that the Codex Committee on Food Additives in its endorsement role implicitly had the responsibility of determining whether an adequate justification had been made for the use of the additive concerned. The delegation of the United Kingdom drew the Commission's attention to paras 292–293 of the Report of the Ninth Session of the Commission, where it was stated that the Codex Committee on Food Additives should rely on the justifications for use of food additives supplied by the Commodity Committees. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on food Additives was of the opinion that there was no need to change the Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Food Additives as laid down in the Third and Ninth Reports of the Commission, but that merely some clarification was needed as to which Committee had the ultimate responsibility for deciding upon the technological justification of the use of additives.
226. In order to clarify further the responsibilities of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and the Codex Commodity Committees, the Commission reaffirmed its position, expressed as follows at the Ninth Session:
“(a) Codex Commodity Committees were responsible for the proposal of food additives on the basis of full justification for their use, and on the basis of consideration of good manufacturing practices. The maximum levels for food additives thus proposed should, therefore, represent the smallest amount of the additives needed. It was also the responsibility of the Commodity Committees to propose maximum levels in food for various types of contaminants.
(b) On the basis of the recommendations of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives concerning the safety-in-use (acceptable daily intake (ADI) and other restrictions) and an estimate of the potential and, where possible, the actual intake of the food additives, the Codex Committee on Food Additives either endorsed, temporarily endorsed or did not endorse the food additive provisions proposed by the Commodity Committees. The Codex Committee on Food Additives also took into account the availability of specifications of identity and purity of food additives and other relevant questions not dealt with by other bodies (see paragraphs 54–56, ALINORM 72/12).”
227. In order to discharge properly the responsibilities concerning technological justification, the Commission agreed that Commodity Committees had the primary responsibility for determining the technological need for an additive in accordance with the “General Principles for the Use of Food Additives”. Reports of Commodity Committees should include sufficient information on the basis of which the Codex Committee on Food Additives would consider whether or not the need for the additive had been technologically justified by the Commodity Committee.
228. The Codex Committee on Food Additives had an overall responsibility to ensure that food additive provisions in Codex standards were in conformity with the General Principles for the Use of Food Additives. In order to ascertain the safety of the total use of the particular additive, the Codex Committee on Food Additives considered information as set out under (b) above. In order to assist the Committee, Commodity Committees should furnish information on the actual and potential use of the food additive to the Codex Committee on Food Additives.
229. In the event that the Codex Committee on Food Additives was satisfied that a real likelihood existed that the actual intake exceeded the acceptable daily intake, requiring the curtailing of the use of the food additive, it should so inform the interested Commodity Committees and request that appropriate information be made available to it on the basis of which a decision could be reached as to which food additive provision (s) should be reconsidered in standards.
Other Matters
230. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Additives was of the opinion that the reports and monographs of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives took an unduly long time to be published and requested the Commission to recommend to FAO and WHO that all efforts be made to expedite the publication of these reports, adopting if necessary a form such as that used for the report of the Third Joint FAO/WHO Conference on Food Additives and Contaminants, which had been published without delay. The Secretariat agreed to look into the matter of the publication of these documents and to make all efforts to comply with the suggestion of the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Additives. The Secretariat pointed out, however, that monographs containing specifications and toxicological information took some time to prepare in a final form. The Commission concurred in the above remarks of the Chairman of the Committee and the Secretariat.
231. The delegation of Poland expressed the opinion that the problem of the addition of phosphates to various foodstuffs should be carefully considered, because of the phosphorus - calcium balance in the total human diet, especially in the diet of children. It also stated that before a decision was taken as regards the addition of nitrates in cheese production (which has been proposed by the Joint FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products) the Food Additives Committee should carefully consider the danger of the formation of nitrosamines and also take account of the statements of a number of countries (Report of the 16th Session of the Joint Expert Committee on Milk and Milk Products) that the addition of nitrates is not technologically necessary. Limits for metal contamination in the concentrated juices should be reconsidered. The delegation of Poland concluded by stating that it seemed unreasonable to multiply the amount of metal content in proportion to the degree of concentration of products, as is now the case.
232. The delegation of Belgium stressed the importance of carrying out food intake studies on the basis of which the Codex Committee on Food Additives could arrive at better estimates of the intake of food additives. The Commission was in agreement with this statement.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
233. 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.
234. The Commission had before it the Report of the Eighth Session of the above Committee which met in Budapest in September 1973. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. A. Miklovicz (Hungary) reported on those items which were to be considered at the next and subsequent sessions. These were:
235. The attention of the Commission was directed to paragraphs 4 to 7 of the Committee's Eighth Session. The Commission had been requested to note that, in the opinion of the Committee, “revising adopted methods included in Codex Commodity Standards, or indeed replacing them with other methods may not constitute an amendment of the Codex Standards concerned”. The Commission agreed that the action described above might or might not constitute an amendment and that it would be a matter for judgement.
236. An ad hoc working Group which had met during the Eighth Session to consider terms of reference and general principles for the establishment of Codex methods of analysis and sampling, reported to the Committee that they found no fault with the present terms of reference and general principles.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
237. 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.
238. The Commission had before it the Reports of the Eighth and Ninth Sessions of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling as contained in ALINORM 74/22 and ALINORM 74/22A, respectively. The reports were introduced by the Chairman of the Committee, Dr. D.G. Chapman (Canada). The Commission noted that, at its Eighth Session, the Committee had decided that the declaration of net contents was intended to be on the basis of “average contents” as determined from an adequate sample of containers. The Commission was informed that the next session of the Committee, which would be held in Ottawa, Canada, in the last week of May in 1975, would consider, inter alia, the following points: claims, nutritional labelling, bulk containers, date-marking, storage instructions, harmonization of non-technical detail on a linguistic basis, class names for food additives and the location of additive declarations on the labels.
239. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that they attached particular importance to the next meeting of the Committee, as the subject of date-marking would be discussed. In this connection, they proposed that governments be requested to send to the Canadian Secretariat before the end of the year, copies of their existing regulations on date-marking, so that a review of all this information, including the different approaches of governments to this subject, would be available for consideration by the Committee at its next session. The Commission concurred in this proposal and noted that Canada had prepared a paper on this very subject which would be submitted to governments. The Delegation of Gabon pointed out that the requirements for date-marking varied according to the product, such as climatic conditions, and that this should be taken into account when examining this problem.
240. The delegation of the Sudan stated that as a matter of general principle, labelling should include the sort of information required by consumers whose beliefs had an important bearing on the nature and method of preparation of the food they consumed. This view was supported by several delegations. The delegation of Canada stated that this matter would be considered by the Committee at its next session when dealing with claims on lables and urged those delegations which had specific observations to put forward on this particular problem to send them to the Canadian Secretariat as soon as possible. The Commission agreed that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling should look into this matter and noted the statement of the Canadian delegation that the matter would be considered in connection with claims as this appeared to be the most convenient way of dealing with this matter.
241. The Commission noted that the form of declaration for food additives on labels would be examined at the next session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
242. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Canada.
243. The Commission had before it the Report of the First Session of the above Committee (ALINORM 74/11). Dr. Björkman (Sweden), Chairman of the Committee, acted as Rapporteur.
World-Wide or Regional Standards
244. At the Ninth Session of the Commission, the Committee was requested to consider at its First Session the question of the need to establish one or more regional standards for edible ices, in addition to its task of developing world-wide standards, and to report back to the Commission in due course.
245. The Commission noted the following from the Committee's report:
“In the Committee there had been some divergence of opinion as to whether the best approach would be to reach agreement through the elaboration of regional standards and subsequently make an effort to harmonize these or whether the pattern should be set by a world-wide standard, which would, however, not preclude the elaboration at a later stage of regional standards. It was agreed to follow the latter approach, but to bear in mind that in some regions special considerations would influence the composition and nomenclature of the product and would have to be taken into account.”
246. The Commission took note of the written comments of Austria, stating that they were in favour of the development of certain regional standards (ALINORM 74/41). The delegation of Austria indicated that it was their intention to present their comments to the Second Session of the Committee and that there was no need, therefore, for the Commission to enter into a discussion on the matter.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
247. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Edible Ices should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Sweden.
Matters arising from the Report of the Committee
248. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils, Mr. A. Hubbard of the United Kingdom, introduced the report of the Committee (ALINORM 74/19) and informed the Commission that the Committee had considered revised identity characteristics for fats and oils based on GLC but had concluded that the inclusion of such mandatory provisions in the Codex standards was premature. The Committee had adopted a standard for lowerucic acid rapeseed oil and advanced it to Step 3 of the Codex Procedure. This type of oil was compositionally different from ordinary rapeseed oil.
249. As regards the medical implications concerning erucic acid, the Committee had requested the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Nutrition to consider this question. The Committee had agreed that the draft prepared by IFMA for low-fat spreads should, after redrafting in the Codex format, be submitted to governments at Step 3 of the Procedure.
250. The Committee had decided to proceed with the elaboration of standards for palm oil, palm kernel oil and coconut oil and had agreed to give further consideration, at its next session, to the need to elaborate standards for babassu and grapeseed oils and unrefined marine oils for food manufacturing purposes.
251. The Committee had agreed that the scope section of a number of standards for fats and oils needed clarification together with definitions for “edible” and “virgin” oils. The Committee had endorsed a decision of a previous session that the General Standard for Fats and Oils should cover oils for direct consumption only.
252. The delegation of Canada stressed that the reason for elaborating a separate standard for low-erucic acid rapeseed oil was that certain cultivars of rapeseed grown in a number of countries which yielded an oil of different composition than ordinary rapeseed oil were now large scale items of international trade. The development of this standard was not based upon any medical question at this time, as there was lack of evidence that erucic acid was implicated in human heart disease. They suggested that instead of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Nutrition, a suitable consultation should be convened to study this problem. Other delegations confirmed that for the moment it was not possible to state that long chain fatty acids were implicated in all the apparent effects of rapeseed oil on the cardiac muscle of experimental animals.
253. The Secretariat informed the Commission that the possibility was being explored that WHO might hold an ad hoc consultation, as suggested by Canada, at which the appropriate FAO staff would participate.
254. The delegation of Gabon informed the Committee that, pending clarification of the safety or otherwise of rapeseed oil, his government had stopped all imports of rapeseed oil.
255. The representative of the IOOC informed the Commission that collaborative tests on the methods to determine the fatty acid at position 2 in the triglyceride and sterols have been completed and that the agreed methods would be submitted to the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils in due course. At that time the Committee might be in a position to include, as agreed to in principle, provisions for such fatty acids and sterols in the olive oil standard.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
256. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the United Kingdom.
257. The Commission had before it the Report of the Sixth Session of the Codex Committee on Sugars (ALINORM 74/27). Mr. N.K.S. Baker of the United Kingdom, on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee, gave an outline of the work of the Committee. The purpose of the session had been to review the standards at Step 9 which had been sent to governments for acceptance in the light of government acceptances and other developments. The Committee had also considered some additional criteria to be included in the standards and had discussed the need for standards for additional sugars. The Committee had proposed that the methods of analysis for sugars, other than products of starch hydrolysis, should be reviewed and revised by ICUMSA (International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis). It was noted with appreciation by the Commission that ICUMSA had already set up a sub-committee for this purpose.
258. Furthermore, the Commission was informed that a request had been made to ISO to assist in a similar review and revision of the methods of analysis for starch hydrolysis products.
259. The delegation of Canada drew the attention of the Commission to the fact that the limits for lead in the standards appeared to be high. The representative of ICUMSA stated that a new and improved analytical method was now under consideration and would be proposed to the Codex Committee on Sugars in the near future. The Commission was informed that the Committee had agreed that it was not necessary to add to the standards a criterion for insoluble matter and that an acceptable method of analysis for turbidity was not yet available for inclusion in the standard for white sugar.
260. The Commission agreed to the proposal of the Committee that the standards for powdered sugar and powdered dextrose at Step 9 should be amended to base the compositional criteria on the products as sold instead of, as at present, on the sugar or dextrose from which they are made. It was noted that a considerable amount of collaborative work would be necessary before it would be possible to formulate a precise proposal to be placed before the Commission.
261. Government comments had been requested on a proposed draft standard for fructose at Step 3. The Commission agreed that, exceptionally, the United Kingdom Secretariat could follow the same procedure for the further elaboration of the standard as that followed for powdered dextrose. However, the Commission considered that the Executive Committee should be kept informed regularly of the progress of the standard by the United Kingdom Secretariat of the Committee.
262. In view of the proposed work programme of the Committee, it was unlikely that a meeting of the Committee would be necessary until further progress in the revision of methods of analysis had been made.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
263. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Sugars should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the United Kingdom.
264. The Commission had before it the Report of the 16th Session of the above Committee (CX 5/70, 16th Session, October 1973) and document ALINORM 74/39. Dr. E. Ackermann (Switzerland), Chairman of the Committee, acted as Rapporteur.
Labelling of Ingredients in Recommended General Standards for Process (ed) Cheese (A-8(a)), Process(ed) Cheese and Spreadable Process (ed) Cheese (A-8(b)) and Process (ed) Cheese Preparations (A-8(c))
265. The Commission had before it a request from the Milk Committee to resolve a difference of opinion between it and the Codex Committee on Food Labelling. In the working document, a factual review was presented with regard to the point at issue concerning the provisions for the declaration of ingredients in standards for processed cheeses. In particular, the deliberations of the Milk Committee on the question of whether a complete or a selective list of ingredients should appear on the label of the products covered by the standard were fully set out and related to the relevant discussions of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling.
266. The Commission noted that in discussing the labelling requirements for certain ingredients, the Government Expert Committee, after long deliberations, had agreed to a compromise which signified that:
emulsifiers, (ii) cream, butter, butteroil, (iii) salt, (iv) spices and flavouring foodstuffs need not be declared. The following reasons were put forward:
emulsifiers are essential manufacturing aids without which processed cheese could not be made (emulsifying agents are mentioned in the definition of these products);
cream, butter, butteroil, are natural milk ingredients used to a limited extent for adjusting the composition of the product;
salt is an ingredient always present in cheese;
spices and flavouring substances appear in the name of the product.
267. A further argument given for not listing the various ingredients on the label was the difficulty of fitting all the information on the label of small units and particularly where more than one language was required.
268. The Chairman of the Committee of Government Experts drew the attention of the Commission to the fact that the standards under discussion were minimum standards and had reached Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Milk and Milk Products Standards which implied that “the recommended standard is published as a standard in the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products when the Committee determines that it is appropriate to do so in the light of the acceptances received”. A number of countries had already accepted the standards.
269. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling reviewed the discussions of the Committee on Food Labelling over the years on the question of the listing of ingredients in foods. In particular, he pointed out that the Committee appreciated that there might be exceptions to the rule to list all ingredients and had made the necessary provisions in the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. He further stated that the great majority of the Codex Standards at Step 9 contained the requirement of a complete list of ingredients.
270. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling further pointed out that, with the exception of two delegations, the considered opinion of the Committee had been that the reasons advanced for the non-declaration of certain ingredients on the label of processed cheese products were not sufficient to warrant exemption from the requirement in the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, stating that “a complete list of ingredients shall be declared on the label in descending order of proportion”.
271. He further expressed the view that where the labelling of small units might provide difficulties, it would suffice to declare a full list of ingredients on the retail container rather than on the individual units. In this connection, it was pointed out that with assorted packages there might be some difficulties.
272. The representative of the IOCU stated that no selection should be made with respect to which ingredient should or should not be declared. In his opinion, all ingredients should be listed. He agreed, however, that for the declaration of ingredients for small units, if necessary an exception could perhaps be made.
273. During the discussion of these matters in the Commission a large number of delegations agreed with the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling that the basic principle of a full declaration of the list of ingredients should be required for dairy products as was the case for other foods such as meat or processed fruits and vegetables. It was also stated that a partial list of ingredients could be in certain circumstances more misleading that no declaration at all.
274. The delegations of Belgium and France stated that they supported the views of the Milk Committee. In their opinion, a full declaration of the list of ingredients for processed cheese products would raise considerable technical difficulties concerning small packages, especially in countries with more than one official language.
275. The delegation of the Netherlands was of the opinion that section 3.2(a)(i) of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods gave Codex Commodity Committees the right to deviate from the general rule of a complete listing of ingredients if, in their wisdom, they thought it fit to do so. The Commission could of course apply stricter rules but such rules had not been developed until now. The delegation was not against the development of such rules but challenged the right of the Commission to deviate from the general labelling standard, owing to the lack of these rules.
276. The Commission noted that section 3.2(a)(i) of the Recommended International Standard for Prepackaged Foods (Ref. No. CAC/RS 1-1969) allowed for exceptions to be made in Codex standards but such exceptions required to be endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling.
277. The delegation of the U.S.A. stated that governments were free to decide whether or not within their territories to require a complete listing and could indicate their position when accepting the standards.
278. The delegation of Canada informed the Commission that regulations recently promulgated in their country will require a complete list of ingredients to be declared on labels in both English and French by 1 March 1976. The regulations will permit certain specified milk products to be declared by the group name “milk solids” when declaring ingredients of food products.
279. In view of the fact that the great majority of delegations present concurred with the view of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, the Commission decided that a complete list of ingredients should be required to be declared on the label for products covered by standards A-8(a), (b) and (c).
280. The Commission had before it document ALINORM 74/42 containing a report on developments concerning the Draft European Regional Standard for Natural Mineral Waters (see ALINORM 74/19A). In introducing the subject, the delegation of Switzerland gave a résumé of the history of the draft standard and outlined the position taken by the Swiss National Codex Committee in their contacts with representatives of WHO. In an attempt to reach an agreement on the issue of claims relating to health, the Swiss National Codex Committee had proposed an amendment to the scope section of the standard by inserting the following text to make it clear that mineral waters used for medicinal purposes were excluded from the standard: “It does not apply to those mineral waters which are, because of their high mineral content and/or other efficient substances, declared by national authorities to be medical waters and can, therefore, only be sold as pharmaceutical products and consumed in small quantities or on the basis of a medical prescription”. As regards the expression “properties favourable to health”, the Swiss National Codex Committee had proposed that it be replaced by a reference to “specific physiological effects” which the characteristics of the water, based on various considerations (e.g. geological, hydrological, physical, chemical, physico-chemical, microbiological, clinical and pharmacological) may have. The delegation of Switzerland pointed out that dissolved substances such as iodide, fluoride and bicarbonate had well established physiological properties which acted favourably on the health of certain consumers.
281. In view of the position taken by WHO, the delegation of Switzerland stated that they were no longer in a position to assume the mandate given to it by the Commission in trying to arrive at a solution of the problem represented by the definition of natural mineral waters. As mineral waters would continue to be marketed by European countries even in the absence of a Codex standard, the delegation of Switzerland was of the opinion that it would be regrettable if the Codex Alimentarius Commission was not able to influence governments to control claims which were occasionally excessive, concerning the properties attributed to natural mineral waters.
282. The representative of WHO informed the Commission that in the opinion of WHO the proposed amendment to the scope section was not required but if it was so decided to include it then the following text should also be added: “It does not apply to mineral waters sold under any other name or description”. As regards the new proposed expression “which may confer specific physiological effects”, he indicated that it was equally unacceptable as it was not capable of precise definition and would still imply that the physiological effects were favourable to the health of the consumer. The point of view of WHO was based upon the fact that no scientific evidence had been provided to support such claims. WHO proposed, therefore, in addition to the deletion of the reference to claims to properties favourable to health in the scope section the deletion of the reference to such properties in section VI (A) (Labelling) subparagraphs (viii), (ix) and section VI(E) (Optional Labelling) of the Draft Standard. It was felt that any reference to properties favourable to health for the purpose of promoting the sale of natural mineral waters would lend itself to misleading the consumer. WHO had also suggested that reference be made in the Draft Standard to the sampling, bacteriological, virological, biological, physical and chemical and radiological criteria for drinking water, as in the case of the WHO International Standards for Drinking Water (3rd ed. 1972).
283. The representative of WHO stressed that, at the WHO consultations on natural mineral waters, persons had been present who were expert and eminent in such fields as pharmacology, clinical methodology, natural mineral waters and physiology. He pointed out that WHO was not in a position to change its position concerning matters relating to health, but would be willing to consider any new scientific evidence relating to the properties of mineral waters submitted to it.
284. The Commission was informed that FAO shared the views of WHO.
285. The representative of the International Organization of Consumers Unions supported the position taken by WHO and FAO. He indicated that the IOCU had examined literature in the field of natural mineral waters and had concluded that the position taken by WHO was fully justified and that no claims should be made which could not scientifically be justified. In this connection, the opposition of WHO to the definition of natural mineral waters was not a formal one, but one based on sound scientific judgement. The standard as drafted would allow claims to be made concerning properties favourable to the health of the consumer and it might also be construed that WHO and FAO condoned or even agreed with such claims which, in the view of WHO, had not been substantiated.
286. The delegation of France, supported by the delegation of Italy, pointed out that a distinction should be made between mineral waters used as beverages and mineral waters used for medicinal purposes. As regards the first mentioned, the delegation of France pointed out that they answered a public need in the sense that drinking water from the public supply, being generally surface water, required to be treated with chemicals, in particular chlorine, to render it potable, whilst mineral waters consumed as table water met criteria as to bacteriological purity which are controlled and they were not, therefore, treated chemically. The delegation of France stressed that, notwithstanding such properties, excessive publicity or claims should not be made in respect of natural mineral waters in the matter of properties favourable to health. The delegation of the Netherlands was in agreement with the statement of France but agreed with WHO that claims relative to curative properties should not be made in connection with natural mineral waters. The delegation of the United Kingdom pointed out that under United Kingdom legislation any claim in respect of food was permitted provided such claims were truthful and did not mislead the consumer. In their opinion, no reference to properties favourable to health need be made in the standard, as natural mineral waters should be capable of definition in terms of actual physical and chemical properties, without going on to note the question of physiological effects.
287. The delegation of Austria pointed out that there were two approaches concerning the standardization of natural mineral waters, one based on a minimum requirement for dissolved solids and another based on properties relating to health as judged by the competent authority in the country concerned. One difficulty was to draw a demarcation line between table waters suitable for daily and continuing consumption and mineral waters having medicinal properties. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany supported the view expressed by the delegation of Austria. The delegation of Switzerland pointed out that, in order to avoid misunderstanding, there had never been any intention that the standard for natural mineral waters should permit claims relating to curative properties. On the other hand, there were physiological properties due to the chemical composition of the water which were recognized and the consumer should be informed of these properties.
288. The Commission agreed that, as long as the standard for natural mineral waters contained reference to properties favourable to health or similar provisions, the elaboration of the standard could not be continued. The Commission, therefore, decided to table the Draft European Regional Standard for Natural Mineral Waters until such time as (a) either reference to properties favourable to health had been deleted, or (b) new scientific evidence had been submitted to WHO on the basis of which claims relating to health could be substantiated. The Commission requested that the Coordinating Committee for Europe be kept informed on developments so that if data were made available substantiating the claims referred to above, the Coordinating Committee could reconsider the problem in the light of the new data and WHO views on it. In this connection, the Chairman of the Coordinating Committee could request the Executive Committee to place the subject of mineral waters on the agenda of the Commission's session. The Commission noted that the European Economic Community was elaborating a draft directive for natural mineral waters. It also noted that a standard for bottled water was under consideration by the Government of the U.S.A. but that no claims would be permitted as to properties favourable to health.
Confirmation of Chairmanship
289. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of Switzerland.
