Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Asparagus (Agenda Item 4a)
Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Oranges, including Guide for Use in Scoring Freezing Injury (Agenda Item 4b)
Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Tiquisque (White and Lilac) (Agenda Item 4c)
Proposed Draft Standard for Yucca (Agenda Item 4d)
Proposed Draft Standard for Uchuva (Agenda Item 4e)
Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Yellow Pitahayas (Agenda Item 4f)
Proposed Draft Revised Codex Standard for Papaya (Agenda Item 4g)
71. The Committee recalled that at its 7th Session it decided to return the Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Asparagus to Step 3 for additional comments and consideration at its next meeting, in order to allow for UNECE/Codex collaboration to establish a revised sizing table based on size codes, as opposed to quality grades, which truly reflected all type of asparagus marketed in international trade[14]. Comments were requested under CX/FFV 99/7. In addition, document CX/FFV 99/7-Add.1 prepared by the CODEX/UNECE Secretariats containing a Revised Sizing Table for Asparagus, was presented to the Committee as agreed by the 7th Session of CCFFV.
72. The Representative of the UNECE informed the Committee of the discussion that took place on asparagus at the last 44th Meeting of Experts on Coordination of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. He noted that no text for a solution could be drafted during that session but a number of points were made, in order to include slender varieties of tropical asparagus in the UNECE Standard for Asparagus, with the understanding that they would be considered when discussing the UNECE standard for Asparagus at the next session of the Meeting of Experts.
73. The Committee was also informed that violet/green and green asparagus with a diameter between 3 and 10mm were cultivated in some Mediterranean European countries. This type of asparagus was not covered by the current EU Standard for Asparagus so that discussion were underway in order to include these slender varieties of asparagus known as "trigueros" in the EU Standard.
74. Following an extensive discussion on whether to introduce a special provision for green tropical asparagus with rapid growth, allowing less compact tips, with a certain percentage of opening in "Extra Class", the Committee decided to form a working group consisting of Thailand, Philippines, Germany and EC to draft a wording for inclusion in all classes, to take into account the characteristics of green asparagus grown in tropical zones. The Working Group also worked on a Proposed Sizing Table in order to introduce asparagus grown under certain climatic conditions in the Table to allow it to be marketed in all classes.
75. On the basis of the Working Group proposal, the Committee agreed on the following changes in view of the above-mentioned discussion:
Section 1 - Definition of Produce
76. The Committee agreed to change the figure of "6 mm" to "3 mm" to indicate that for green and green/violet, asparagus with a minimum diameter of 3 mm were covered by the standard. As a consequence of this change, the last paragraph of the Section was deleted.
Section 2.2.1 - "Extra Class"
77. The Committee agreed to add a sentence to the end of the first paragraph as follows: "For green asparagus grown under conditions which encourage rapid growth the tip shall be compact". The provision for a "very compact tip" was retained for other types of asparagus.
Section 2.2.2 - Class I
78. The Committee agreed to add a sentence to the end of the first paragraph as follows: "For green asparagus grown under conditions which encourage rapid growth the tip may be slightly open".
Section 2.2.3 Class II
79. The Committee agreed to add a sentence to the end of the first paragraph as follows: "For green asparagus grown under conditions which encourage rapid growth the tips may be moderately open".
Section 3.2 Sizing by Diameter
80. The Committee agreed to replace the current table in the standard with a new one, which included asparagus grown under certain climatic conditions with a minimum diameter of 3 mm.
81. The Observer from the EC expressed the view that the adoption of the new sizing table was a positive development and corresponded to the orientation of current discussion within the EC, although a final position had not yet been taken. He noted that the EC would be informed of this Committee’s decision.
82. The representative of the UNECE said that the adopted provisions seemed to be a logical solution. He would transmit this information to the UNECE Specialized Section, which would discuss it in November and hopefully come to a harmonized conclusion.
Sections 2.2.1 "Extra" Class, 2.2.2 Class I and 2.2.3 Class II
83. Following an exchange of view as regards the correct translation of the word "rust" in the Spanish version of the Standard, the Committee agreed to refer to "rust caused by not pathogenic agents" rather than "rust" throughout Section 2.2. It was also agreed that the word "rust" would be translated as "manchas color herrumbre" in the Spanish version as "rust" was linked to a disease produced by fungi and not to the dark colour that appeared on the shoot.
Section 7.1 - Heavy Metals
84. The Committee agreed to re-word Section 7.1 Heavy Metals indicating that the asparagus "shall not exceed" the Codex maximum levels and MRLs whereas the current wording refers to "shall comply" with those limits. In view that this was a major change in the Standard, that would affect all Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables, the Secretariat informed the Committee that Section 7.1 would be sent to the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants for endorsement.
Section 7.2 - Pesticide Residues
85. The Committee agreed to re-word Section 7.2 Pesticide Residues indicating that the asparagus "shall not exceed" the Codex maximum levels and MRLs whereas the current wording refers to "shall comply" with those limits. In view that this was a major change in the Standard, that would affect all Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables, the Secretariat informed the Committee that Section 7.2 would be sent to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues for endorsement.
Section 8 Hygiene
86. The Committee agreed to apply the same revision previously made in other standards to the Draft Codex Standards for Pineapple.
Status of the Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Asparagus
87. The Committee agreed to advance the Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Asparagus (see Appendix IX) to the 23rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption at Step 5.
88. The Committee recalled that its last session had considered the Proposed Draft and had agreed that the Codex and UNECE Secretariats would elaborate a harmonized text based on the quality provisions of the UNECE Standard for Citrus Fruits. It was noted that the provisions concerning maturity requirements (e. g. minimum sugar content, minimum sugar/acid ratio) were still under discussion in UN/ECE.
89. The Committee considered the standard section by section, taking into account the general changes made in other standards, and made the following specific amendments.
Section 2.1 - Minimum Requirements
90. A reference to frost and high/low temperature was added to the section concerning damage caused by low temperature, in view of the importance of this type of damage for citrus fruit. The reference to shape was deleted as it was covered in the quality classes, and the indent on maturity was deleted as this aspect was covered in the following section.
91. The Committee agreed to add a reference to "internal shrivelling and external healed cuts" to the indent on bruising, in order to make it more specific as regards the defects covered.
92. Section 2.1.1 on maturity was harmonized with the corresponding section of the UNECE standard.
Section 2.1.3
93. The Delegation of India indicated that the varieties grown in their country belonged to the "other varieties", and proposed to lower the juice content in that category to 30%. Other delegations pointed out that a distinction should be established between table oranges and juice oranges.
Section 2.1.4 - Colouring
94. The Committee considered in detail the opportunity of retaining the note concerning the oranges of a green colour grown in the tropics
95. The Observer from the EC, where pointed out that a Working Group was studying the economic and technical aspects of the question, and given the important implications of this technical work, it was the unanimous view of the Member States of the EU that it was premature to maintain the food note at the current stage.
96. The Delegation of Brazil supported retaining the note as the exclusion of green oranges would not correspond to current practice in international trade and would represent an unjustified barrier to trade which would seriously prejudice the interest of exporting countries. This exclusion was not justified on technical grounds as the quality of oranges was not determined by their colour but by all other quality requirements of the standards, and the consumer should be allowed to chose
97. The Delegation of Cuba stressed that the green oranges produced by Cuba and other tropical countries were of the same quality as oranges produced in temperate zones, and corresponded to a significant segment of the market in Europe and other regions of the world. Therefore, there was not technical justification for avoiding their trade, provided that they complied with the maturity requirements of the standard. The Delegation of Mexico pointed out that it was not possible to exclude green oranges from the international market, since they represented a very important portion of the world market of oranges.
The Mexican Delegation also opposed this exclusion for considering it as a technical barrier to trade. The Delegation of Colombia indicated that, based on research work, it was possible to confirm that the internal quality (juice content, °Brix, acidity) of green oranges was not inferior to yellow coloured oranges. The Delegation of India pointed out that colouring of the fruit was a varietal characteristic. In many Indian varieties of oranges the skin remained green even after the maturity of the fruit. These positions were supported by many countries, who pointed out that there was no technical justification for preventing the marketing of green oranges, provided they met the maturity requirements of the standard. These delegations proposed to delete the reference to a maximum surface of one fifth for a light green colour in the section.
98. The Delegation of Spain recognized that two types of oranges were present on the market, which corresponded to different marketing systems rather than different climates, as the conditions in some areas of the Mediterranean and other zones were similar to those in the tropics, with no significant variations of temperature. However, green oranges were not marketed in the European and Mediterranean areas as the consumer required table oranges of a yellow or orange colour. Considerable efforts had been made across the years in the citrus industry to meet consumer demand, and any change in the current requirements would have a serious economic impact in producing countries. This position was supported by the Delegation of Italy and the Observer from CLAM, who referred to the current work in UNECE and the need to consider this question carefully in order to avoid disrupting the market and confusing the consumer.
99. The Committee noted that there was considerable support for retaining the current footnote and agreed to keep it, with the understanding that this question would be considered further at the next session, in the light of the work carried out in the UNECE. Consequently, the reference to a tolerance of one fifth of the total surface with light green colour was deleted. The Delegation of USA supported by Uruguay also noted that it was necessary and essential to define other maturity criteria, in addition to the current requirement for juice contents, in order to determine the maturity of green oranges more precisely.
Sections 2.2.2 Class I and 2.2.3 Class II
100. The Committee agreed to make some amendments in the description of the defects, in order to harmonize this section with the UNECE standard.
Section 3 - Provisions concerning Sizing
101. The Committee referred to earlier discussion in the standard for grapefruits and recognized that this section would require further consideration as a number of proposals had been made during the session. The Committee noted that the issue of sizing would be considered globally, and agreed to leave the section in square brackets in the meantime.
Section 4 - Provisions concerning Tolerances
102. The Committee agreed to the proposal of the Representative of UNECE to delete all reference to the missing calyx, as this was not considered as a defect. The Delegation of India pointed out that calyx needed to be defined for oranges.
Section 5.2 - Packaging
103. The Committee agreed to combine the paragraphs dealing with presentation in layers and in packages for clarification purposes and harmonization with the UNECE standard.
Section 6.2.4 - Commercial Description
104. The reference to degreening was deleted and the section was aligned with the UNECE standard.
105. The Delegation of Chile proposed to delete the note at the beginning of the standard, to the effect that countries should indicate which provisions they accepted at the import and the export stage, as it pointed out that all standards were applicable equally in both instance in international trade. The Secretariat recalled that this note existed only in the standards for fresh fruits and vegetables and had been introduced when the work of the Committee was initiated. In view of the conclusion of the WTO Agreements and the ongoing revision of the acceptance procedure in Codex, the Committee might wish to revise the need for the note. Some delegations expressed the view that this question needed further consideration as it would affect all standards
Guide for Use in Scoring Freezing Injury
106. The Delegation of Spain pointed out that the guide was incomplete as it did not cover all situations, and other elements should be taken into account, as the duration of transport and the size of the oranges, as the results would be different according to the conditions. The Committee agreed that further comments should be provided in order to determine the exact scope of application for the Guide and its relationship with the standard.
107. The Committee recognized that the standard had been discussed in detail in the previous and current sessions and that it should be advanced to Step 5 to reflect the progress achieved so far. The Observer from the EC pointed out that the EC had no objections to advancing the text, but that the section on Colouring would need to be reconsidered. This position was supported by the Delegations of Spain, Italy and the Observer from CLAM. The Committee noted that the entire standard would be considered by the Committee with a view to its finalization at the next session.
Status of the Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Oranges, including Guide for Use in Scoring Freezing Injury
108. The Committee agreed to forward the Proposed Draft to the Commission for adoption at Step 5 of the Procedure (see Appendix XI).
109. The Committee agreed that at its last Session accepted the offer of Costa Rica to prepare a proposed draft Codex Standard for Tiquisque (White and Lilac). The 45th Session of the Executive Committee approved the elaboration of the Standard as new work, with the understanding that information on production and trade should be provided. The Secretariat circulated the document for comment at Step 3 under CX/FFV 99/9 in October 1998.
110. In discussing the document point by point, the Committee took into account the general changes introduced into other standards and agreed on the following specific changes:
Title
111. In view of the wide variation of common names for Tiquisque, the Committee agreed to add a footnote to the title of the standard, which listed the common names of Tiquisques in different regions.
Section 1 - Definition of Produce
112. The Committee agreed to modify the wording of this Section by adding the word "tubercle" in order to identify which part of the plant was being standardized. It was also agreed to add the Latin name for both white and lilac tiquisques.
Section 2.1 - Minimum Requirements
113. The Committee agreed to add an indent "practically free from signs of sprouting" and to delete the last two indents concerning maturity and shape. It was felt that there was no need for these provisions as they were already covered by other Sections in the Standard.
Section 2.1.1
114. The Committee agreed on the following changes, taking into account that the produce being standardized was a tubercle and not a fruit:
- to replace the word "picked" by "harvested"115. The Committee agreed to add an additional indent "slight defects in shape" in order to be in line with other Codex Standards for fresh fruits and vegetables. It was also agreed to delete the word "texture" in the second indent since this was not considered as a defect.
- to add the word "physiological" before "development"
- to delete "and ripeness" Section 2.2.2 - Class I
Section 2.2.1 - Class II
116. The Committee agreed to add an additional indent "defect in shape" for consistency with other Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables. It was also agreed to delete the word "texture" in the second indent since this was not considered as a defect.
Status of the Draft Codex Standards for Tiquisque (White and Lilac)
117. The Committee advanced the Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Tiquisque (White and Lilac) (see Appendix V) for adoption at Step 5/8 with omission of Steps 6 and 7.
118. The Committee recalled that the last session had agreed that the Delegation of Costa Rica would prepare a Proposed Draft Standard for Yucca. The Executive Committee approved this new work, with the understanding the information would be provided as to the production and trade of this commodity, following which the text was circulated at Step 3 for comments.
119. The Delegation of Costa Rica referred to CRD 13, presenting the data on the production of yucca and its international trade, and pointed out that the exports from Costa Rica for this product were increasing. The Committee considered the Proposed Draft section by section and made the following amendments.
Title
120. The Delegation of Nigeria pointed out that Nigeria was one of the major producers and that the common name used in English was "cassava", as was also reflected in FAO publications on commodities. The Delegation of France and the Observer from COLEACP indicated that the name in French was "manioc". The Committee agreed to use those names in the English and French versions, and to indicate in a footnote in the Spanish version that this product was commonly known in certain regions by other names (mandioca, tapioca, aipim etc. ).
Section 1 - Definition of Produce
121. The Delegation of the Philippines proposed to clarify in the definition that the varieties containing a high level of cyanogenic glucosides should not be included in the standard, and the Committee had an exchange of views on how to reflect this clearly in the text. It was noted that bitter varieties were commonly produced in several regions, especially in Africa, and that the colour of the flesh did not allow to distinguish between different types of varieties. The Committee agreed to refer to "non-bitter varieties" of Manihot esculenta, in English, to "manioc doux" in French, and to "yucca dulce" in Spanish, and to specify that the roots were the edible part of the plant.
Section 2.1 - Minimum Requirements
122. The Committee agreed to delete the reference to the typical shape as this should be covered in the quality classes, as was current practice in other standards.
123. The Committee agreed to the proposal from the Delegation of the Philippines to add an indent referring to "free from flesh discolouration", as flesh colour was an important characteristic.
124. The Committee agreed to specify that the "stem end" should be clean cut, as this was the correct terminology for a root, and agreed to transfer the provisions concerning the "cuts exposing the flesh" to the section on classes, where specific tolerances should be determined in each class.
125. In section 2.1.1 covering maturity and development, reference was made to the "physiological development", as cassava was a root and the current term of "ripeness" applied only to fruits.
Section 2.2.1 - "Extra" Class
126. The Committee agreed to delete the reference to "commercial type", as it was not relevant for cassava. It was further agreed to include the provisions for shape in the description of the class.
127. The Committee noted a proposal from the Delegation of Thailand to include provisions concerning the texture of the flesh, and especially its fibrous quality, as an indicator of quality.
128. The Committee considered how far the cuts in the apex caused by trimming of the secondary roots and exposing the flesh should be allowed, and noted that the width of the cut depended on the size of the roots. The Delegation of Colombia pointed out that the size of the cut was not an essential factor in the quality of cassava and that roots of excellent appearance and keeping quality might present wide cuts. The Delegation of Costa Rica expressed the view that specific provisions should be included to address this question since the standard was for the purposes of international trade.
129. The Committee agreed that trimming cuts at the apex of the root should not be more than1 cm in Extra Class. However, it could not come to a general conclusion on the issue of the cuts and recognized that further consideration should be given to this question.
130. Some delegations noted that other aspects might also require clarification, especially as cassava was a relatively new product in some markets, and the Committee agreed that the text could not be finalized at this stage. It was however noted that, as no major issues had been identified in the discussion, it would be possible to finalize it at the next session after detailed consideration.
Status of the Proposed Draft Standard for Cassava
131. The Committee agreed to return the Proposed Draft to Step 3 and expressed its appreciation to the Delegation of Costa Rica for its offer to redraft the text in the light of the changes made at the current session and the comments received. The revised text would be circulated for further comments at Step 3 and considered by the next session.
132. The Committee recalled that the last session had agreed that the Delegation of Colombia would prepare a Proposed Draft for Uchuva. The Executive Committee approved this new work, with the understanding that information would be provided as to the production and trade of this commodity, following which the text was circulated at Step 3 for comments in document CX/FFV 99/11.
133. The Delegation of Colombia informed the Committee that considerable efforts had been made to develop fruit production in Colombia, and a significant export market existed for uchuva, a fruit originating from Peru and common in the Andean countries. The Committee reviewed the standard section by section, taking into account the general changes introduced in other standards, and made the following amendments.
Title
134. The Delegation of Germany and other delegations indicated that the English name currently used in trade was "Cape gooseberry", and the Committee agreed that to include it in the English version, while recognizing that other names existed. The Delegation of France indicated that the current French name was "physalis" and the Observer from COLEACP noted that several other names were used. The Delegation of Peru indicated that the common Spanish name in their country was "capuli".
135. In order to avoid confusion, the Committee agreed that, in all versions, the title would refer to the common name, with the Latin name (Physalis peruviana) in parenthesis and a footnote indicating that the product was commonly known in certain regions by other names.
Section 2.1 - Minimum Requirements
136. The Committee agreed that the requirement for "whole" applied to fruit with or without calyx, as both types were commonly traded. A reference to the condensation following removal from cold storage was included to make it clear that such condensation was not a defect. The Committee also agreed that the peduncle should not be longer than 25mm in all classes.
137. The Committee agreed with the proposal of the Delegation of Colombia to delete Section 2.1.2, referring specifically to the calyx, as its provisions were covered by other general requirements.
Section 2.2.1 - "Extra" Class
138. The Committee agreed to delete the last paragraph concerning the defects of the calyx, as they were covered by the general provisions on the defects of the fruit. This was applied consequentially to sections 2.2.2 (class I) and 2.2.3 (Class II).
Section 3 - Provisions concerning Sizing
139. The Delegation of Germany proposed to refer to the equatorial section and to specify that the minimum diameter of the fruit was 15 mm. The Delegation of Colombia confirmed that no fruits below that diameter were allowed and that no tolerances existed in this regard. The Committee agreed to include the proposed changes, to delete the size range for diameters below 15 mm and to amend the list of size codes accordingly.
Section 5.1 - Uniformity
140. The Committee agreed that, as regards uniformity in the package, reference should be made to quality instead of class, and that the mention of the commercial type was not necessary. The type of presentation (with or without calyx) was included for clarification purposes and consistency with section 2.1 (see para. 133).
Annex
141. The Delegation of Colombia indicated that the Annex was presented for information only, and recalled that the minimum maturity requirement (14.1°Brix degree) was specified in the standard. It was noted that this minimum corresponded to Number 3 of the Colour scale. The colour codes below this value (0 to 2) had been included in the Table in order to explain better the stages of maturity in relation to colour and Brix degree. The scale was used to ensure that uchuva was picked at an adequate stage, which was particularly important for a non-climacteric fruit.
142. As the Delegation of Colombia proposed to include a photograph showing uchuva colouring for further clarification, the Secretariat indicated that it was not yet possible for technical reasons but that the feasibility of including it in the final Codex Volume would be considered. The Delegation of Colombia proposed the inclusion of colour photographs in the standards in order to facilitate the comprehension of them.
143. The Committee had an extensive exchange of views on the opportunity of advancing the text to Step 5/8 for adoption by the Commission. Several delegations pointed out that significant progress had been made and that no specific problems had been identified; consequently, there was no justification for delaying the advancement of the standard. The Delegation of Colombia pointed out that the finalization of this standard was of great importance to facilitate and promote trade in this product.
144. Some delegations indicated that they did not object to advancing the text to Step 5 but that it should follow all the steps of the Procedure, as it was preferable to consider it further at the next session. These delegations pointed out that cape gooseberry was relatively recent in their countries and that they needed enough time to consider all aspects of the standard; in addition, there was no particular urgency pertaining to the finalization of this standard. The Committee recognized that the consensus necessary to propose the omission of Step 6 and 7 could not be achieved.
Status of the Proposed Draft Standard for Cape Gooseberry
145. The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Standard to the Commission for adoption at Step 5 (see Appendix XI).
146. The Committee at its last Session accepted the offer of Colombia to prepare a Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Yellow Pitahaya. The 45th Session of the Executive Committee approved the elaboration of the standard as new work with the understanding that information on production and trade should be provided. The Draft Codex Standard for Yellow Pitahaya was subsequently circulated for comments at Step 3.
147. The Committee decided to revise the Standard section by section. General decisions taken by the Committee in other standards were taken into account in the revision.
Section 2.1 - Minimum Requirements
148. The Committee agreed to delete all the examples between brackets as shape was already covered in the quality. It was also agreed to take out the phrase "without thorns" from the sixth indent and to put it in a separate indent for consistency. In addition, the figure of "20 mm" was changed to "25 mm" for the peduncle in the ninth indent.
149. The Committee agreed to add the following sentence to the end of Section 2.1 Minimum Requirements: "The minimum flesh content shall be 31%".
Section 2.1.1
150. The Committee agreed to put the last paragraph of this Section in a footnote after the word "ripeness", in order to be line with other Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables.
Section 2.2.2 - Class I
151. The Committee agreed to change the word "deformation" from the first indent by "defect in shape" for consistency with other Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables. It was also agreed to delete the last indent "the peduncle should not be more than 25 mm long" and to refer the figure of "25 mm" to Section 2.1 Minimum Requirements, as it applied to all quality classes (see para. 145, seventh indent).
Section 2.2.3 - Class II
152. The Committee agreed to replace the phrase "loss of ovoid shape" by "defect in shape" for consistency with other Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables. It was also agreed to delete the last indent concerning shape as this was already covered by the first indent in this Section.
Section 3 - Provisions concerning Sizing
153. The Committee noted that the numbers in the column of size code referred to number of fruits per box and agreed to use letters instead of numbers for consistency with other Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables. A minimum weight of 110 grams was specified, and the Delegation of Colombia confirmed that there was no tolerance below that size. In consequence, the last row of the column corresponding to the smaller fruit was deleted.
Section 6.2.5 - Official Inspection Mark (optional)
154. The Committee agreed to delete all the indents in this Section in order to align it with other Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables.
Status of the Proposed Draft Standard for Yellow Pitahayas
155. The Committee advanced the Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Yellow Pitahayas (see Appendix VI) for adoption at Step 5/8 with omission of Steps 6 and 7.
156. The Committee recalled that at its last Session had accepted the offer of Brazil to prepare a Proposed Draft Revised Codex Standard for Papaya. The 45th Session of the Executive Committee approved the elaboration of the Standard as new work. The Proposed Draft Revised Codex Standard for Papaya was subsequently circulated for comments at Step 3.
157. The Committee decided to revise the Standard section by section. General decisions taken by the Committee in other standards were taken into account during the revision.
Section 1 - Definition of Produce
158. The Committee agreed to add the word "fruit" to indicate which part of the plant was being standardized.
Section 2.1 - Minimum Requirements
159. The Committee agreed to add an additional indent to include the term "fresh in appearance". In addition, the Committee had an exchange of views on the need to include a specific indent to refer to "shape", as consideration on this should be given in the respective quality classes. It was pointed out that "shape", in the case of papayas, was a very important attribute, which depended directly on the variety and type of papaya. Following an extensive discussion, the Committee decided to make no reference to "shape" since even for a single variety and/or type, the "shape" of the papayas could vary.
160. Since papayas were very sensitive to high temperature, the Committee decided to refer to "low and/or high temperature" in the indent relating to damage caused by temperatures. The Committee also decided to add an additional indent to limit the length of peduncle to 1 cm.
Section 2.1.1
161. Following an extensive discussion about the inclusion of "colour break" after the word "ripeness" in the first paragraph of this Section, the Committee decided not to make any reference to colour, since it was not felt to be necessary as an essential requisite to indicate the maturity of the fruit. In view of this, it was agreed to delete all references to colouring throughout the standard.
Section 2.2.3 - Class II
162. Some delegations felt that the figure of "20%" as a maximum limit for the total area affected by defects was too high and therefore, the Committee agreed to decrease the value to "15%".
Section 3 - Provisions concerning Tolerances
163. The Delegation of Brazil presented an additional Sizing Table, which merged the two groups of papayas (Papaya and Formosa Group), into a single size code. The Committee noted that in case it decided to adopt the second table, reference to the name of variety and/or commercial type should be mandatory.
164. The Delegation of Mexico proposed to add two additional size codes to the table presented by Brazil, since in Mexico, papayas with a weight of more than 3 kg could be traded. A number of delegations shared the view that the last category of size (>2001 g) allowed for the trade of that type of papayas and therefore, there was no need to modify the table. In view of this, the Committee agreed to adopt the sizing table as presented.
Section 4.1.1 - "Extra Class"
165. The Committee agreed to change the figure of "10%" to "5%" for consistency.
Section 6.2.2 - Nature of Produce
166. The Committee agreed to delete "optional", as the variety should be indicated in view of the change to the sizing section (see para. 160, Section 3).
Status of the Proposed Draft Revised Codex Standard for Papaya
167. The Committee agreed to advance the Proposed Draft Revised Codex Standard for Papaya (see Appendix VII) for adoption at Step 5/8 with omission of Steps 6 and 7.
