33. The Committee noted the background of the document and the fact that the 45th Session of the Executive Committee (June 1998) had approved the elaboration of the proposed draft Guidelines/Recommendations as new work at Step 1.[6] The Delegation of Mexico introduced the paper and emphasized that the guidelines/recommendations should guarantee the safety of food and rapid entry into the country of destination. The Committee was informed that the text prepared incorporated the comments received from Germany, Australia, Egypt, United States and the Netherlands and the principles of FAO Manual of Food Quality Control. Imported Food Inspection (Food and Nutrition Paper 14/15, 1993) and WHO Manual for Inspection of Imported Food (1992) were applied.
34. The Committee agreed to receive the views of participating delegations on the document taking into account the fact that the text had not been formally circulated to governments and interested international organizations for comments. The Committee discussed Annex 1 to the working document containing the proposed draft Guidelines/Recommendations for Imported Food Control Systems section by section.
GENERAL ISSUES
35. The Committee thanked the delegation of Mexico for the paper, which received wide support from the delegations. Several delegations expressed their intention to move forward while some delegations were generally of the opinion that further elaboration of the paper should be made and the work in this area should proceed carefully and gradually.
36. The Delegation of Germany speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union present at the Session[7], expressed its concern that the text presented only one possible model and that there were different ways of achieving the same results (such as systems of “self-checking”). The representative stated that the text should be developed only as an Information Paper and the heading of the text should be changed as such, although it was noted that such texts had not been published in the Codex Alimentarius. These views were supported by the Delegation of Switzerland. The Delegation of Malaysia wished the text to remain as an information paper and not as a guideline in view of the problems faced by many developing countries in setting up infrastructure such as communication systems and the application of risk assessment. The Delegation of the Republic of Korea supported this view.
37. Several delegations stated that the paper should take into account the relative responsibilities of the importing and exporting countries. It was pointed out that it was the responsibility of the producers, exporters and importers to comply with the regulatory requirements established by the importing country and that it was the responsibility of the governments to show that these requirements had been met.
38. Several delegations stated that the structure of the proposed guidelines needed to be changed so as to be more consistent with operations rather than following a series of principles. It was noted that this would require a very substantial redrafting of the document.
39. A question was asked about the difference between guidelines and recommendations under the WTO Agreements. The Committee noted the opinion of the 45th Session of the Executive Committee on this matter and the comments of the Chairman of the WTO SPS Committee[8].
SCOPE
40. Several delegations expressed their opinion that the scope of the paper should be extended to cover consumer protection issues such as fraud as well as food safety. Some delegations recommended deletion of the reference to the determination of equivalence.
DEFINITIONS
41. The Committee noted that the definitions conform to those of the Procedural Manual and other texts adopted by the Commission.
SECTION 3 - TRANSPARENT SYSTEM WITH DOCUMENTED PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS
42. It was suggested that this section should refer to Food Import Control Inspection Systems, rather than Food Import Control Systems. It was also suggested that reference should be made to the timeliness of communication and dissemination of information on regulations, policies and guidelines applied by an importing country.
SECTION 4 - CLEARLY DEFINED AUTHORITY FOR LEGISLATION, REGULATION AND OFFICIAL INSPECTION SYSTEM
43. The Committee agreed to delete reference to the possible extension of sovereignty of a country to food production controls in other countries.
44. Several delegations expressed the need to further elaborate the issues related to use of third party organizations for inspection, testing and analysis, and certification. The representative of WTO explained that the SPS and TBT Agreements did allow the use of third party inspections. It was also noted that such “officially recognized systems” were included in the Codex Principles for Import and Export Inspection and Certification.
45. The Delegation of Germany speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union present at the Session requested that reference to “pre-authorization acceptance” of imported foods be deleted.
SECTION 5 - APPLICATION OF RISK ANALYSIS
46. Several delegations questioned the statement that resources should determine priorities in regard to risk analysis, and stated that priorities should be determined on the basis of risks to public heath. Delegations also expressed concern at the emphasis on lot-by-lot inspection in this section, stating that such a procedure was unusual and very burdensome. It was requested that the term “history of compliance” be qualified.
47. There was considerable concern about the proposal that exporting countries should collect and disseminate epidemiological data on food-borne illnesses. A number of delegations requested that this provision be deleted from the guidelines or else be placed in a framework where there was equivalent responsibilities between the importing and exporting countries. The Representative of Consumers International supported retention of the provision. It was noted that such information was being collected and disseminated within the context of other programmes.
SECTION 6 - A FOOD IMPORT CONTROL SYSTEM SHOULD BE CONSISTENTLY IMPLEMENTED AND PROVIDE FOR PARITY WITH DOMESTIC CONTROL
48. A number of delegations drew attention to the fact that it was not always possible to apply the same requirements to imported foods as apply to domestic products. The Observer from the WTO clarified that the WTO SPS and TBT Agreements did not require this, but required that imported goods received no less favorable treatment than domestic goods, bearing in mind the objectives of the relevant requirements.
49. Questions were raised about some of the obligations implied in the proposal that Food Import Inspection Systems should be fully documented, and what this would mean for those developing countries that had inadequate infrastructures. It was suggested that specific, quantifiable criteria might need to be established in order to meet the obligations of this requirement.
50. Several delegations referred to the need to defining the point of entry. It was also suggested that provision should be made for inspection of food in transit from one country to another and also via a third country.
SECTION 7 - RECOGNITION OF FOOD SAFETY CONTROLS IN THE EXPORTING COUNTRY
51. As noted above, it was suggested that this section should be expanded to cover other requirements, not only food safety controls. It was also suggested to include the concept that developed importing countries should provide assistance to developing countries to assist them to establish control systems and standards that would meet the level of protection desired by the importing country.
SECTION 8 - ADHERENCE TO THE CODEX “CODE OF ETHICS FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN FOODS”
52. It was suggested that this section should be brought into line with the relevant Codex documents quoted and that the responsibilities of the importing and exporting parties and authorities be better defined. It was suggested that this section should contain a provision for feedback of information to the exporting country in order to improve the future level of compliance with import requirements.
STATUS OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT GUIDELINES/RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOOD IMPORT CONTROL SYSTEMS
53. The Committee agreed that the Proposed Draft Guidelines/Recommendations should be redrafted and restructured prior to being circulated for comment at Step 3. The Committee appointed a drafting group consisting of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, South Africa and the USA to undertake the revision. The Delegation of Mexico and the Australian Secretariat would coordinate this work.
