7. In addition to the matters referred to in the document CX/FH 98/2, the Representative of WHO informed the Committee of activities of interest for the work of the Committee. It was noted that the publication Surface Decontamination of Fruits and Vegetables Eaten Raw: a Review[1], prepared by WHO in collaboration with NSF International, described the pathogens associated with fresh fruits and vegetables and the efficacy of different methods of decontamination, with particular emphasis on chemical disinfection. This information would be useful for the discussion of the codes related to fresh fruits and vegetables under Agenda Items 7 and 8.
8. The Committee noted that the FAO/WHO/IAEA Study Group on High Dose Food Irradiation (Geneva, 1997) had reviewed the safety and nutritional adequacy of foods irradiated at doses above 10 Kgy; it had concluded that these foods were safe and wholesome and there was no need to impose an upper dose limit for safety and nutritional purposes.
9. The Joint FAO/WHO Consultation on the Role of Government Agencies in Assessing HACCP (Geneva, June 1998)[2] had been organized in order to address the role and responsibilities of government agencies in the assessment of HACCP. Among other things, the Consultation recommended that a number of terms such as food safety objectives, significant hazards and officially recognized bodies should be clarified; the relationship between risk assessment, HACCP and food safety objectives should be addressed; and the need to provide guidance on the pre-requisites to HACCP should be considered. The Consultation recognized the complexity of the subject and the difficulty of reaching consensus in one meeting. Therefore, it recommended that government agencies and other interested parties should communicate their comments to FAO and WHO, which would review their guidance on the basis of their experience.
10. The Representative of FAO indicated that a Training Manual on Food Hygiene and HACCP[3] had been recently published by FAO, and that several training of trainers courses had been implemented in developing countries.
11. With reference to the Expert Consultation on Validation of Analytical Methods for Food Control, some delegations pointed out that in the area of microbiology, a distinction should be made between validation and the use of equivalent methods, and that strict application of some recommendations might prevent the use of certain methods which were currently applied. The Committee however recalled that the Consultation had focused mainly on methods for chemical substances.
12. The Committee recalled the request of the Commission for the establishment of an expert advisory body to provide the scientific basis for its decisions and was informed of the preparatory work undertaken by FAO and WHO in this respect. The Representative of FAO indicated that FAO was currently working with WHO on the organization and mandate of the Consultation, planned for March 1999, and recalled that the establishment of an expert body was subject to the final decision of the FAO Council. The Representative informed the Committee that contacts would be made with member countries and international organizations with a view to the selection of experts in this field. The Representative of WHO also informed the Committee that there was great progress in WHO in the preparations for the establishment of the advisory body. The Committee agreed that the advisory body should follow the model of JECFA and should receive direction from the CCFH on priorities for its programme of work.
13. The Committee expressed its appreciation to FAO and WHO for their efforts to address these important issues and the Chairperson pointed out that this Committee would need the advice of the parent organizations in order to develop a mechanism to establish priorities and advise the expert body of its specific needs.
DRAFT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 6.1.2 OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FOOD HYGIENE
14. The Committee agreed with the proposal of the Delegation of India to specify that if rinsing was not required according to the manufacturers’ instructions, this should be “on a scientific basis”, and no other changes were made to the proposed text.
Status of the Draft Amendment to Section 6.1.2 of the General Principles of Food Hygiene
15. The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Amendment to Step 5 of the Accelerated Procedure for adoption by the 23rd Session of the Commission (see Appendix III).
ENDORSEMENT OF FOOD HYGIENE PROVISIONS IN THE DRAFT REVISED STANDARD FOR HONEY[4]
16. The Committee noted that the text of the draft had been revised by the United Kingdom, host country of the Committee on Sugars (adjourned) and circulated for comments at Step 6. Specific provisions for food hygiene had been included, which slightly differed from those which had been previously endorsed.
17. The Committee recognized that the Hygiene section did not correspond to the standard provisions included in the Procedural Manual as these covered “substances originating from microorganisms”, whereas a reference to “plants” had been added in the draft standard. Some delegations also pointed out that this could be interpreted as including pollen, which might be present in honey and was likely to create confusion. The Committee questioned the purpose of the reference to the product sold “to the final consumer”, as it was not clear how this might affect food safety control in the earlier stages.
18. The Committee requested the Committee on Sugars or the host country responsible for the revision of the standard to provide some clarification about the inconsistencies of the section with the hygiene provisions for commodity standards presented in the Procedural Manual. The Committee, noting that the text had been presented as a CRD due to its late availability, agreed that it should be circulated for comments, according to the usual procedure for endorsement by general subject committees, and consideration at its next session.
