Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Canned Applesauce
Proposed Draft Revised Standard For Canned Pears
Proposed Draft Standard for Canned Stone Fruits
Other Proposed Draft Revised Standards for Canned Fruits
Status of Proposed Draft Standards for Canned Fruits
10. The Committee noted that the existing standards for processed fruits and vegetables had been reviewed and revised for consideration by the Committee. The work had been undertaken by a Consultant to the Secretariat (Mr. George Baptist, Nigeria) in cooperation with the US host government Secretariat. The Proposed Draft Revised Standards had been circulated for comments as CL 1997/1-PFV in February 1997. In the new drafts, the provisions of each standard were divided into those requirements which could be defined as either sanitary measures or technical regulations and subject to governmental regulations in the body of the text; and those which could be described as voluntary or commercial requirements in a separate Annex to each standard.
11. The Committee reviewed the Proposed Draft Revised Standards for Canned Applesauce and Canned Pears, noting as it did so, that many of the decisions taken would apply to other standards. The Committee also revised the Standards for Canned Apricots, Canned Peaches and Canned Plums by combining them in a joint standard covering stone fruits of the genus Prunus.
SCOPE
12. The Committee was of the opinion that a general statement of Scope would be helpful to clarify the application of the standards. The Committee agreed that processed fruits and vegetables used as ingredients of other products normally should also meet the requirements of the standards. The Committee therefore agreed to insert a general section on Scope in all relevant standards as follows:
“This Standard applies to [name of the product] as defined in Section 2 below and offered for direct consumption including for catering purposes or for repacking, if required. It does not apply to the product when indicated as being intended for further processing.”Description
13. The Committee agreed that the provisions designating “sweetened” and “unsweetened” styles were essential for consumer protection in relation to this product. It therefore agreed to transfer the provisions for styles including classification of “defectives” and lot acceptance for styles from the Annex to the body of the standard.
14. The Committee agreed to raise the minimum level for total soluble solids in unsweetened applesauce to 9% (9°Brix) from 7% to reflect the current trade practice. There were three proposals for the minimum level for total soluble solids in sweetened applesauce, to change to 14% or 15%, or to retain the current level of 16.5%. The Committee proposed 15% (15°Brix) in square brackets and to request information on the current national practices on the minimum level for total soluble solids in sweetened applesauce.
15. The Committee decided not to delete “the addition of water” from Description (b) to provide flexibility of manufacturing. The Committee further decided to amend the clause to read as follows so as to avoid redundancy with the section on other permitted ingredients:
“packed with or without the addition of water as may be necessary to assure proper consistency and other permitted ingredients as indicated in Section 3.1.2 below; and”.This decision would be applied to other standards wherever detailed reference to other permitted ingredients was required in the Description.
Essential composition and Quality Factors
16. The Committee deleted the reference to liquid packing medium from Basic Ingredients as the product did not contain packing medium. However, the Committee agreed to add “water” to the list of Other Permitted Ingredients. The Committee agreed to amend the term “sugars” in Other Permitted Ingredients to read as follows:
“Sugars as defined in the Codex Alimentarius and/or other carbohydrate sweeteners such as honey”.It also agreed that the term “sugars” or “nutritive sweeteners” appearing in other sections should be replaced by “sugars and/or other carbohydrate sweeteners such as honey”. This decision would be applied to all Proposed Draft Standards where these terms appear. The Committee agreed to use the term “matière sucrants” in the French version and “materias azucaradas” in the Spanish version for the English term “carbohydrate sweeteners” to avoid confusion and for clearer understanding of the nature of substances. The Committee noted that a product sweetened with intense sweetener(s) would not meet the requirement of minimum level of total soluble solids in sweetened product as specified in Description.
Food Additives
17. In line with the current Codex practice, the Committee decided to insert the INS numbers of food additives included in all Proposed Draft Standards.
Antioxidants
18. Several delegations were of the opinion that isoascorbic acid did not function as an antioxidant in this product and proposed to delete it from the list. It was reported that isoascorbic acid was used as an antioxidant to retain the colour of the product. Regarding the difficulties in distinguishing isoascorbic acid from ascorbic acid in analysis, it was pointed out that the maximum level was set for these two additives used singly or in combination. The Committee decided to place isoascorbic acid in square brackets and to request information on technological justification for its uses.
Flavourings
19. Several delegations stated that artificial flavours which could be used to mask the poor quality of the product should not be allowed from the points of view of consumer protection and fair practices in the food trade. On the other hand, to provide flexibility in manufacturing and to reflect the fact that Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants had undertaken considerable work on flavourings since the initial drafting of this provision, the Committee decided to use the following wording:
“Natural and artificial flavours except those which reproduce the flavour of apple.”This text would be utilized in all Proposed Draft Standards, where this provision existed, with relevant product name(s). The Committee agreed to change the heading from “flavours” to “flavourings”.
Colours
20. The Committee had a lengthy discussion on whether to allow the use of colours in the product. A number of delegations stated that artificial colours should not be allowed as they were possibly used to mask poor quality of the product and had the potential to deceive consumers. However, other delegations requested that these colours be retained noting that they had been evaluated as being safe for use in foods by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants and that their inclusion in the standard would allow for flexibility and reflect manufacturing practices in various regions of the world. The Committee decided to delete Erythrosine from the list and to replace it with Allura Red. It placed the provision in square brackets for further discussion and requested technological justification for the use of colours from those countries that authorized their uses. These decisions would be applied, as required, to all other Proposed Draft Standards for canned fruits.
Contaminants
21. The Committee noted that the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants had not yet agreed upon maximum levels for tin and lead in processed foods. It agreed to reinstate the maximum levels for tin and lead (250 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg respectively in the existing standard for canned applesauce) in all the Proposed Draft Standards where there are ones in the existing standards, but to put them in the square brackets pending guidance from the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants on this issue.
Hygiene
22. The Committee decided to delete the reference to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Low-Acid and Acidified Low-Acid Canned Foods as canned applesauce was a high acid food. The Committee also decided to insert the term “appropriate” between the terms “other” and “Codes of Hygienic Practice”.
Labelling
23. Consequent to the decision made under Description, the Committee decided that if a product was sweetened in accordance with the relevant provision for "sweetened" style, labelling of this fact should be obligatory, while if unsweetened, labelling should be optional. The Committee also decided to transfer the provisions in the Annex concerning the labelling of seasonings and flavourings which characterized the product and that of other styles to the body of the standard.
Labelling of Non-Retail Containers
24. Noting that the relevant provisions of the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods made explicit references to the possibility of providing the name and address of the distributor, the Committee decided to use the following wording in all the Proposed Draft Standards:
“Information for non-retail containers shall be given on the container or in accompanying documents, except that the name of the product, lot identification and the name and address of the manufacturer, packer or distributor, as well as storage instructions, shall appear on the container. However, lot identification, and the name and address of the manufacturer, packer or distributor may be replaced by an identification mark, provided that such a mark is clearly identifiable with the accompanying documents.”Annex
25. The Committee replaced the existing leading paragraph of the Annexes of all the Proposed Draft Standards with the following wording adopted by the Commission at its 22nd Session[5]:
“This text is intended for voluntary application by commercial partners and not for application by governments.”Other Quality Criteria
Colour
26. The Committee agreed to put the phrase “Except for applesauce containing artificial colour,” in square brackets as a consequence to placing colours in square brackets.
Colour, Flavour, Consistency
27. On the question of whether to delete the provisions on colour, flavour and consistency in order to avoid redundancy, the Committee decided to retain them in the Annex as they were referred to in the classification of “defectives”.
Weights and Measures
Minimum Fill
28. Several delegations requested that the provision for minimum fill be transferred to the body of the standard for its importance in ensuring fair practices in trade. However, some other delegations stated that this provision was restrictive and not important for either the quality or safety of the product and the matter should be left between commercial partners. It was noted that the Codex standards for canned fishery products did not contain a provision of minimum fill. The Committee decided to put the provisions of minimum fill, classification of “defectives” and lot acceptance for minimum fill in square brackets and retain them in the Annexes of all relevant Proposed Draft Standards. The Committee agreed to seek guidance of the Executive Committee on the minimum fill provisions in the standards for canned fruits and vegetables in view of the fact that the provision was not included in the standards for canned fishery products which had been adopted by the Commission.
Vitamin C Fortification
29. Some delegations proposed the use of ascorbic acid for the purpose of vitamin C fortification. Noting that ascorbic acid used as a nutrient was excluded from the Codex definition of food additives and that nutrient fortification had not generally been dealt with in Codex standards, the Committee decided to request the Codex Committees on Food Labelling and on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses to provide guidance on how to deal with fortification issues in commodity standards.
30. The Committee considered the Proposed Draft Standard in the light of government comments and decisions taken when reviewing the Proposed Draft Standard for Canned Applesauce. General decisions taken in relation to Canned Applesauce (see paras. 12-29 above) are not reproduced here. The Committee agreed that several decisions to be taken in relation to this product would also be valid for other canned fruits normally presented in liquid packing media.
Product Definition
31. The Committee modified the last sentence of the paragraph in order to allow unpeeled whole and half pears to be used. The Delegation of France expressed the view that pears must be peeled and if not, that this should be indicated on the label.
32. The Committee considered a proposal that the detailed section on Styles in the Annex of the Standard should be moved back into the body of the Standard because it was common practice in trade to refer to styles. The Committee was advised that such a step would be contrary to the recommendations of the 19th Session of the CAC to simplify Codex standards as appropriate and wherever possible. The Committee noted that the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products had dealt with similar problems and had introduced a general text relating to styles and presentations. The Committee agreed to include this general text in all standards for processed fruits and vegetables, where appropriate.
Packing Media
33. Following an exchange of views concerning the use of packing media, the Committee decided to set up a small working group on packing media to advise it on a general framework for the classification of packing media and the sugar concentration of the different types of syrups, which could be applicable to all canned fruit standards under consideration. The working group consisted of delegates from France, Guatemala, Spain, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
34. Following a brief discussion, the working group provided the Committee with several options for the establishment of sugar concentrations of syrups. Some delegations expressed concern at the applicability of a common set of Brix figures for all canned fruits, noting that some adjustments to Brix figures might be necessary according to the particular characteristics of the fruit. It was generally agreed that ranges instead of minimum Brix figures should be used to characterize different categories of syrups.
35. After a very full discussion, the Committee accepted a proposal of the Secretariat to prepare a Proposed Draft Guidelines for Packing Media covering both composition and labelling and applicable to all canned fruits, except in cases where specific provisions might be required. The Committee also agreed to the inclusion of a common definition of “solid pack” to be applied to all canned fruits, where appropriate. The Guidelines could be used as a reference document to replace the existing provisions. The Committee was unable to debate the details of the Secretariat's proposal due to time constraints and agreed to circulate the Proposed Draft Codex Guidelines for Packing Media for Canned Fruits at Step 3 for comments and consideration at its next Session. The Proposed Draft Guidelines are contained in Appendix V to this report.
36. Pending a final decision concerning packing media, alternate texts dealing with packing media were included in the standards, with both texts in square brackets for further consideration.
Colours
37. All provisions concerning the use of colours were placed in square brackets (see also para. 20).
Labelling
38. The Committee agreed to transfer from the Annex to the body of the Standard the provisions regarding the declaration of artificially coloured products and the labelling of flavourings which characterize the product; the former was placed in square brackets.
Annex
39. The Committee agreed to delete sections of the Annex dealing with Packing Media in view of the considerations described above.
Weights and Measures
40. Provisions concerning Minimum Fill were placed in square brackets in view of the previous discussion on this issue (see also para. 28).
41. In relation to the provisions concerning Minimum Drained Weight, several delegations proposed the removal of all figures for minimum drained weight in view of the wide range of variation in order to keep flexibility, while noting that the declaration of drained weight was required on the label. Other delegations stated that minimum values for drained weight were necessary in order to avoid unfair competition among producers. The Committee decided to place the provisions for minimum drained weight into square brackets in order to solicit further comments and for discussion at the Committee’s next session. Without prejudice to these discussions, the Committee agreed to add a footnote for clarification allowing for an adjustment in the calculation of drained net weight in the case on non-metallic containers such as jars, and amendments were made to some figures.
42. The Committee requested clarification on the tolerances permitted for the declaration of net drained weight. Recognizing that it was a horizontal issue, the Committee therefore agreed to request advice from the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.
Labelling: Declaration of variety
43. The Committee questioned the use of the designation “Dessert Type” in relation to the optional declaration of variety. It was understood that this expression had been introduced to cover varieties of pear other than the commonly used “Bartlett” variety. The Committee decided to place the phrase “or, optionally, designation of Dessert Type if the variety is other than Bartlett” into square brackets and to accept the offer of the Delegation of Canada to prepare a paper on the justification of the use of this expression for the next session.
44. The Committee decided to combine the Proposed Draft Standards for Canned Apricots, Canned Peaches and Canned Plums into a Proposed Draft Standard for Canned Fruits based on a draft provided by the Secretariat7. General decisions taken by the Committee in relation to the Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Canned Applesauce or Canned Pears are not reproduced here.
Description
45. The Product Definition was reworded to introduce the term “pitted or unpitted” in order to be consistent with the Quality Criteria in the standard and to extend the coverage of the standard to certain unpitted presentations. The Committee agreed to define the species covered by the standard by use of the Latin name of the species in the body of the standard. It was agreed to include references to canned cherries on the understanding that justification for their inclusion would be provided to the next Session of the Committee.
Other Permitted Ingredients
46. The Committee agreed to delete reference to the addition of pits and kernels as ingredients.
Quality Criteria
47. The Committee agreed to add a new sentence relating to the presence of pits or pieces of pit taking into account that their presence could affect the quality of the product and the consumers’ safety.
Additives
48. The Committee agreed to add a new section on acidifying agents in order to reflect current production and marketing practices.
Contaminants
49. Noting that this Standard contained the standard text for pesticide residues, the Committee agreed to incorporate the same text in all other Proposed Draft Standards.
50. The Committee was unable to consider other Proposed Draft Revised Standards for canned fruits due to time constraints. However, the Committee agreed that standards should be elaborated for canned citrus fruits (combining the Standards for Canned Grapefruit[8] and Canned Mandarin Oranges[9]) and canned berry fruits (combining the Standards for Canned Raspberries[10] and Canned Strawberries[11]) pending approval by the Executive Committee. The Committee requested the Codex Secretariat to arrange the drafting of the above standards in a similar manner as the Proposed Draft Standard for Stone Fruits and incorporating all the pertinent decisions made at this Session.
51. On the question of possibility of combining the Proposed Draft Revised Standards for Canned Fruit Cocktail and for Canned Tropical Fruit Salad, the Committee decided to maintain them as separate standards. It was mentioned that although these products shared some similarities, fruit cocktail was a well defined product with significant international trade while tropical fruit salad had broader variations in its composition. It was also mentioned that the title of the Standard for Tropical Fruit Salad should be amended to “Standard for Canned Tropical Fruit Cocktail” as the term “salad” implied the presence of green vegetables. Some delegations were of the opinion that the priority accorded to tropical fruit salad should be lower than that accorded to fruit cocktail.
52. The Committee advanced the Proposed Draft Revised Standards for Canned Applesauce and Canned Pears to Step 5 for adoption by the Executive Committee at its 45th Session[12]. It was noted that those provisions requiring endorsement would be submitted to the relevant general subject committees for consideration. The Committee agreed to circulate the Proposed Draft Standard for Canned Stone Fruits at Step 3 for government comments pending approval of its elaboration by the Executive Committee. The texts of these standards are attached to this report as Appendices II, III and IV respectively. The Proposed Draft Revised Standards for Canned Mangoes, Canned Pineapple, Canned Fruit Cocktail, Canned Tropical Fruit Salad, and Canned Chestnuts and Canned Chestnut Puree were returned to Step 3 for redrafting incorporating all the pertinent decisions made at this Session.
