Draft Revised Standard for Olive Oils and Olive Pomace Oils (Agenda Item 3 (a))
Draft Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (Agenda Item 3 (b))
Draft Standard for Named Animal Fats (Agenda Item 3 (c))
Draft Revised Standard for Edible Fats and Oils not Covered by Individual Standards (Agenda Item 3 (d))
7. The Committee recalled that the Draft Standard had been returned to Step 6 for redrafting in order to include the amendments introduced in the Olive Oil Standard of the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC). The draft was revised taking into account the amendments made to the IOOC Standard since November 1996 and the written comments presented at the last session of the Committee, and was circulated for comments in document CX/FO 99/3 in November 1998.
8. The Observer from the EC informed the Committee that the standard for olive oil was currently being reconsidered in the European Community in the framework of the revision of the Common Agricultural Policy, which might entail a revision of the classification of oils and further pointed out that several provisions in the standard did not correspond to the current EC legislation, especially the following: the definitions of refined oils and refined pomace oils, which were not allowed in the EC: the organoleptic criteria; and the labelling of free acidity. In addition the IOOC was also currently revising the standard and was likely to introduce significant changes to its provisions in the near future. The Observer therefore proposed to defer consideration of the standard until such time as the revisions underway in the EC and the IOOC were completed, which would allow the Committee to incorporate the relevant amendments into the text. This position was supported by the Delegations of Italy, Spain and Greece, which stressed the importance of olive oil production in their country, and by the Delegations of France and Portugal.
9. The Delegation of Tunisia pointed out that the current definitions of olive oils were in conformity with the current IOOC Agreement, which had not been revised so far, and stressed the need to proceed with the discussion of the Codex standard; although some differences might exist with the IOOC standard, these could be addressed through consideration of the draft standard in the Committee. Several delegations expressed their concern with the proposal to defer consideration of the standard as it had already been discussed extensively and returned to Step 6 in order to harmonize it with the IOOC text; it did not appear from the comments received that the current revised draft raised problems of principle, and some countries were unaware that such problems existed until the present session.
10. The Committee agreed that it would not be feasible to finalize the standard at the current session in view of the significant problems encountered by some delegations of European producing countries and agreed that it should not be discussed in detail at this stage, but that those countries should be encouraged to resolve their difficulties so that the Committee could continue its work at the next session.
11. The Delegation of Switzerland suggested that, since some problems essentially affected European countries, consideration might be given to the establishment of a Regional Standard for olive oil.
12. The Observer from the EC expressed the view that a Codex standard for olive oils might not be necessary as there was already an IOOC standard and that, from a practical point of view, it appeared easier to amend the IOOC standard on a regular basis. However, several countries stressed that, although olive oil was produced in specific regions, it was traded world-wide and a Codex standard was necessary for the purposes of international trade.
Status of the Draft Revised Standard for Olive Oils and Olive Pomace Oils
13. The Committee agreed to return the Draft Standard to Step 6 for redrafting in the light of the changes which might be introduced in the IOOC standard and possibly in the EC standard at a later date, in order to develop a harmonized text; the revised draft would be circulated for comments and consideration by the next session.
14. The Committee recalled that the Draft Standard had been returned to Step 6 by the Commission for further comments and consideration by the Committee as a number of issues had not yet been fully resolved. The Committee considered the Draft Standard section by section in the light of the comments received and made the following amendments.
General aspects
15. The Delegation of the United Kingdom proposed to reconsider the overall need for this standard and other standards under discussion by the Committee and stressed the need to reassess the Scope and contents to ensure that only essential provisions were included in the standard; the Committee might also wish to consider the transfer of non-essential provisions to another type of document, to be determined in the future. The Delegation also proposed to consider the opportunity to integrate all current standards into a single standard, as many common provisions existed between the three standards under consideration.
16. Several delegations supported the continuation of current work on the standard in its present form, in view of the considerable importance of vegetable oils in international trade, and as significant progress had already been made in the revision of the text. It was also agreed that the current draft standards should remain separate at this stage, as they covered distinct products and as they had already been simplified by grouping individual oils and fats under two general standards.
17. The Committee agreed to proceed with the review of the standard in its present form with a view to its finalization and noted that the simplification of the text would be considered under the relevant sections, where applicable, especially as regards non-essential provisions.
Preamble
18. The Committee recognized that the Annex included provisions in addition to essential quality factors and to ensure that the intention of the Committee was clear, agreed to replace the current Preamble (referring to acceptance) with the wording approved by the 22nd Session of the Commission in such cases, as follows:
The Appendix to this standard is intended for voluntary application by commercial partners and not for application by governments
19. The Committee agreed that a similar wording referring to the provisions of the Annex would be included in all other standards under consideration, as a consequential amendment.
1. Scope
20. The Committee discussed how far the standard should cover oils intended for further processing (to make them fit for human consumption), and recalled that the current standards applied only to edible oils for direct consumption. Some delegations and the Observer from IFMA expressed the view that international trade concerned crude oils and that provisions should therefore be made for them in the standard; it was also noted that Table 1 on Composition referred to crude oils. Other delegations supported the current text which applied only to oils intended for human consumption and excluded further processing. The Delegation of the Philippines expressed the view that the Scope should be retained and exclude oils of different fatty acid composition, which were still subject to study and review.
21. The Committee recalled that the provisions in the draft reflected the scope of the individual standards and intended to describe vegetable oils for direct consumption. Were crude oils to be included in the standard, current provisions might not correspond to the characteristics of such oils, as the present text covered edible oils and was necessarily more restrictive. The Committee noted that the inclusion of non-edible oils in the Scope might entail a complete revision of the standard, and recognized that it was not desirable at this stage.
22. The Committee therefore agreed that the priority at this stage was to finalize the current standard and that reference should be made to oils for human consumption. However, it also recognized that further work might be required on specifications for crude oils, in view of their importance in trade, and that such provisions might be considered at a later date.
23. The Committee agreed to delete the reference to further processing in order to make the definition more generally applicable and to specify in the Scope that the standard “applies to vegetable oils described in Section 2.1 presented in a state for human consumption”.
2. Description
2.1 Product Definition
24. The Delegation of Germany proposed to align the definitions with the current revision of ISO Standard on Oilseeds Nomenclature (ISO 5507: 1992). Some delegations pointed out that this was a new proposal and that there had been no time to consider whether the taxonomic changes actually corresponded to the species covered by the oilseeds included in the standard.
25. The Committee agreed to make the following editorial corrections to the current names, for clarification purposes:
26. The Delegation of Germany proposed to delete the reference to Brassica hirta in the definition of “Mustardseed”, and to delete Brassica juncea and Brassica tournefortii in the description of “Rapeseed”, as it was more exact to describe it as Brassica napus and Brassica rapa. The Committee had an exchange of views on these proposals but could not come to a conclusion and agreed to leave the section unchanged at this stage.
27. The Delegation of India pointed out that high erucic acid rapeseed oil was regularly consumed in that country without any adverse effects to health, and expressed the view that the scientific basis of health concerns was not well established. As the Delegation expressed concern that the provisions in the standard might prevent the marketing of this oil, the Committee recalled that the current description of “rapeseed oil” covered all types of rapeseed oils, including that with high erucic acid, and that “low erucic acid rapeseed oil” was a different product.
28. The Committee discussed the proposal from the delegation of Canada concerning a reference to “canola” for low erucic acid rapeseed oil. Some delegations supported this proposal, while other delegations pointed out that this name was not recognized by the consumers in their countries and may create confusion. The Committee agreed that this was proposed as an alternative name and that this question should be addressed through labelling, as the name of the product should provide clear information to the consumer. The reference to “canola” was therefore added to the list of usual names (see also para 48).
29. The Committee had an exchange of views on the opportunity of including the following types of oils: High Oleic Acid Safflower Oils (proposed by Japan) and High Oleic Acid Sunflower Oil (proposed by France). It was recalled that the last session had agreed to identify those oils which would require further work, and interested countries had been asked to provide relevant information in CL 1997/2-FO.
30. The Delegation of the United Kingdom expressed the view that the Committee should discuss the general approach to the inclusion of oils from new varieties or with specific changes in composition, and consider the questions to be addressed before undertaking new work on such oils, with a view to their inclusion in the current standard.
31. In reply to a question, the Delegation of Japan indicated that the trade in High Oleic Acid Safflower Oils was increasing and that in view of the demand on the market and its specific characteristics, the inclusion of specific provisions in the standard was justified. The Delegation of France recalled that the last session had requested interested countries to provide relevant information on additional oils and the provisions which should be considered for inclusion in the standards. As these elements had been provided in writing, the Committee agreed that a decision could be taken on the development of new work for these oils, although the corresponding provisions could not be integrated in the draft at this stage, and should be considered through the Step Procedure.
32. The Delegation of the Netherlands proposed to establish criteria to determine whether a new standard or an amendment to the standards was necessary to include vegetable oils before taking a decision on specific proposals. Other delegations proposed to refer to information requested by the Committee rather than to formal criteria, especially as Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities already existed in Codex. The Committee agreed that a decision could be taken on the specific proposals for new work mentioned above, and that the question of criteria should be considered as related to future work, as this question was likely to arise in the future.
33. The Committee agreed to undertake new work on additional provisions for High Oleic Acid Safflower Oils and High Oleic Acid Sunflower Oil. Subject to the approval of the 23rd Session of the Commission, the relevant Proposed Draft Amendments, to be prepared respectively by the Delegations of Japan and France, would be circulated at Step 3 for comments and consideration by the next session. It was also noted that if consensus was reached on these provisions, the next session had the possibility to forward the proposed drafts to Step 5 and 8 with the omission of Steps 6 and 7.
34. The Committee agreed on the following text to clarify the relationship of new proposals with the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils and to specify the information required when proposing the addition of new oils to the standard.
2.2 Other Definitions
2.2.2 Virgin Oils and 2.2.3 Cold Pressed Oils
35. The Committee agreed to specify that “the nature of the oil” was not altered (rather than “the oil”) as this was relevant for virgin oils, in order to clarify that the characteristics were not altered by heat treatment. It was noted that reference to “the oil” was sufficient for cold pressed oils subjected only to mechanical processing
36. The Committee agreed to the proposal of the Delegation of the United States to include examples of mechanical procedures, i.e. expelling and pressing, both for virgin and cold-pressed oils.
37. The Committee referred to the written comments of Australia, proposing that the GLC ranges and some non-essential quality factors should be deleted from the standard since they were not justified on grounds of public health, they were difficult to enforce and they might restrict trade. The Committee noted that in view of the work already accomplished in the development of the standard and as these criteria were valuable to commercial partners, a fundamental reconsideration of the contents of the Annex was not warranted at this stage. However, it was possible to consider the need for non-essential criteria on a case-by case basis as part of the current discussion. The Committee reasserted the view that the GLC ranges were an essential element to determine the composition of the product and decided to retain it in the body of the standard.
3. Essential Composition and Quality Factors
3.1 GLC Ranges of Fatty Acids Composition
38. The Committee had an exchange of views on the need to include a reference to samples falling “significantly” outside the ranges in order to take into account the coefficient variations in the standard methods of analysis. Some delegations pointed out that it would then be necessary to define the extent to which the values found might differ from the standard, or to specify the sampling plans used, as well as the nature of the samples. The Committee also noted that changes in composition relating to specific geographic conditions should be taken into account. It was also noted that many comments had been put forward to suggest changes to Table 1 and to Tables 2, 3 and 4.
39. In order to facilitate discussions and in view of the highly technical nature of the issues, the Committee agreed to convene an ad hoc Working Group[5] chaired by Ms. Morin (France) in order to review the introductory paragraph to Table 1 and the amendments to the ranges in that Table, and also to consider the figures included in Tables 2,3 and 4.
40. The Working Group informed the Committee that it had considered the data proposed with the understanding that they were based on several samples of commercially grown varieties with known authenticity, using internationally recognized methods. Following this principle, all the changes proposed had been considered, which had allowed the Working Group to agree on the revised Table presented in CRD 17. The Delegation of the Philippines expressed its reservation on the fatty acid values for Coconut Oil for C18:3, C20:0 and C20:1 as tests carried out in the Philippines showed that these acids were not detectable in coconut oil and therefore the corresponding values should read as “Non Detectable”. The Committee agreed to the revised values proposed in CRD 17 for Table 1 and expressed its appreciation to Ms. Morin and the Working Group for their constructive work on a complex issue.
41. The Committee also agreed to the proposal of the Working Group for an amended introductory paragraph to clarify the contents of the Table; the reference to samples falling “significantly outside the appropriate ranges” was deleted and replaced with “samples falling within the ranges” and complying with the standard. A sentence was added to the effect that supplementary criteria might be considered to confirm compliance with the standard in view of natural geographical and/or climatic variations.
42. In view of the above discussion, the title of the Table was amended to read: “Fatty Acid Composition of Vegetable Oils as Determined by GLC from authentic samples (expressed as percentage of total fatty acids)”, with a footnote referring to data taken from the species listed in Section 2., for clarification purposes. The Delegation of Egypt expressed the view that the title of the Table should specify whether it applied to crude or to refined oils, as this was relevant for certain oils, especially cottonseed oil. The Committee noted that in general there was no significant difference between the GLC ranges of crude and refined oils, and agreed to retain the current title at this stage, while noting that this question could be further considered at a later date.
43. The Committee noted that it might be necessary to reconsider the values on a regular basis if further data was provided on fatty acid composition for specific vegetable oils, in order to update the standard in the light of all available scientific and technical information.
4. Food Additives
44. In section 4.1, the Committee agreed with the proposal of the Delegation of Cuba to exclude the use of additives in cold-pressed oils, in addition to the current text mentioning only virgin oils.
45. The Committee recalled that the section on additives had been endorsed by the 29th Session of the CCFAC (1997) and agreed to leave it unchanged, although a number of proposals had been put forward in the comments. It was also noted that in the framework of the elaboration of the General Standard for Food Additives, member countries had the opportunity to present their comments directly to the CCFAC on all classes of additives under discussion. This decision was also applied to the other draft standards under consideration.
46. The Delegation of Germany reasserted its objection to the use or the levels of use of additives with a low ADI, especially BHA BHT and TBHQ, since the ADI might be exceeded with the current levels of use, which might raise serious health concerns.
6. Food Hygiene
47. The Committee noted that the 30th Session of the Committee on Food Hygiene had amended the general provisions for inclusion in the commodity standards[6] and agreed to introduce the revised wording in this standard. It was also agreed to include it in the other standards under consideration as a consequential amendment.
7. Labelling
7.1 Name of the Food
48. With reference to the earlier discussion on the inclusion of “canola” as a synonym for Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed Oil in Section 2. Description, the Committee had an exchange of views on the labelling to be required when one of the names was not common in some countries (see para. 28). The Delegation of Sweden pointed out that the use of the term "canola" was not consistent with the EC legislation. The Committee recognized the need to provide clear information to the consumer on the nature of the product and agreed to add the following sentence to the section:
When more than one name is given for a product in Section 2.1, the labelling of that product must include one of those names acceptable in the country of use
8. Methods of Analysis and Sampling
49. The Chairman of the Working Group Methods of Analysis[7], Dr. R. Wood (United Kingdom) presented its report, included in CRD 15. The Committee noted the proposals made by the Working Group and agreed to incorporate the amendments and corrections proposed in the relevant sections of the standard. The Committee expressed its appreciation to Dr. Wood and to the Working Group for their useful work to update this section.
50. In reply to a question from the Delegation of Cuba concerning the methods of analysis for the determination of food additives, the Secretariat recalled that the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants had proposed several such methods, which had been adopted by the last session of the Commission (ALINORM 97/12, Appendix IV). These methods were not specified in the standards as they were of a general application for all foods, and they would be included in the revised version of Codex Volume 13 (Methods of Analysis and Sampling).
Appendix
51. The Committee referred to its earlier decision to include a Preamble on the applicability of the Appendix at the beginning of the standard and agreed to repeat it at the beginning of the Appendix for clarification purposes. It was agreed that this decision would apply consequentially to other draft standards under consideration.
52. The Delegation of the United Kingdom expressed the view that the provisions in the Annex were not relevant to ensure consumers’ health protection or fair trade practices and should therefore be removed from the standard. The Delegation noted that their inclusion in other types of texts, such as industry codes, might be considered later. Other delegations however pointed out that these provisions provided useful information and advice to industry and trade operators, and it was preferable to retain them in Codex standards for ease of reference. The Committee agreed to retain the current format of the Appendix and made the following amendments to the current text.
1.8 Peroxide Value
53. Several delegations and the Observer from IFMA proposed to amend the peroxide value to 10 meq of active oxygen/kg oil for refined oils and 15 meq for cold-pressed and virgin oils, since the current values (respectively 5 meq and 10 meq) were too restrictive and did not reflect current practice in trade. It was also pointed out that the oxidation of cold-pressed and virgin oils was more rapid than refined oils and that a value of 10 meq for those oils might create significant trade problems. The Observer from IFMA indicated that the peroxide value depended on time and temperature, and that the lower values could not be maintained in several regions due to climatic conditions; in addition, requirements for a low peroxide value might encourage an excessive use of antioxidants.
54. The Delegation of Cuba pointed out that the peroxide value was an essential quality factor, which should be kept as low as possible; if appropriate precautions were taken during transport and storage it should not increase to a level of 10 meq, and the value of 5 meq should be retained. The Delegation of Germany supported this view and noted that, as it was common in commercial contracts to specify a value of around 1 meq, the higher figure of 10 meq did not correspond to current practice in trade.
55. Some delegations proposed to retain the higher figure (10 and 15 meq) and to specify that the value depended on the intended use of the oils. Other delegations pointed out that this was not practical as in general, the destination of the oil was not known at the export stage. Some delegations recalled that the previous standard referred to values of 10 and 15 meq and that no satisfactory scientific arguments had been provided to justify a reduction of the initial figures.
56. After a detailed discussion on this issue, the Committee agreed that the section would refer to peroxide values of “up to 10 meq for refined oils and 15 meq for cold-pressed and virgin oils”, and introduced a similar amendment in the Standard for Fats and Oils not Covered by Individual Standards as a consequential amendment.
1.4 Soap Content - 1.5 Iron - 1.6 Copper
57. The Delegation of the United States expressed the view that the values for Soap Content, Iron, and Copper were too high to maintain good quality of the oil.
Tables 2, 3, and 4
58. The Committee agreed to the proposals of the Working Group as presented in CRD 17 concerning the revised values to be included in the Tables. Some minor changes were made to Table 2 (Chemical and Physical Properties) and it was noted that the references concerning Stable Carbon Isotope Ratio (Part A of the Table) would be provided for inclusion in the final standard.
59. The Titles of Table 3 (Desmethylsterols) and Table 4 (Tocopherols and Tocotrienols), were amended to reflect that the levels corresponded to crude vegetable oils “from authentic samples”, which was consistent with the approach taken for Table 1. Some changes were made to the figures in the Tables in the light of the comments received and considered by the Working Group.
60. The Delegation of Malaysia pointed out that the values for desmethylsterols were expressed in percentage of total sterols, whereas the levels of tocopherols and tocotrienols were expressed in mg/kg of oil, and proposed that their expression should be harmonized. Some delegations noted that this question had been discussed in the Working Group, but it was not possible at this stage to amend the expression of the values as this would entail complete redrafting of the tables. The Committee recognized that this question should be addressed at a future date, as part of the regular updating of the standard, as had been agreed in the case of Table 1 (see para. 43).
61. The Committee agreed that considerable progress had been made to revise and update the draft in the light of all comments received, and the Chairman expressed its appreciation to the Committee for coming to a consensus on complex and technical issues, in order to finalize a standard which would be generally acceptable to all countries concerned.
Status of the Draft Standard for Named Vegetable Oils
62. The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Standard to the 23rd Session of the Commission for adoption at Step 8 (see Appendix II).
63. The Committee noted the decisions reached on different sections while discussing the Draft Standard for Named Vegetable Oils and agreed that those decisions would apply consequentially to all other standards where relevant.
Preamble
64. The Committee decided to use the same wording as agreed earlier in the Draft Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (see para. 18).
1. Scope
65. In order to be consistent with the earlier decision made on the Scope of the Draft Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (see para. 23) the Committee decided to include a similar wording and amended the Scope as follows:
This standard applies to the animal fats listed in Section 2 presented in a state for human consumption.
2. Description
2.3 Premier Jus
66. The Committee agreed to delete the reference to a specific temperature for Premier Jus because, in view of current industrial rendering processes, the temperature mentioned (60°C) was not always appropriate for complete water removal, especially when a “humid” process was applied, and therefore to ensure the microbiological safety of the product.
3. Essential Composition and Quality Factors
3.1 GLC Ranges of Fatty Acid Composition
67. The Committee agreed to insert the following sentence after the title of the Table for clarification purposes:
Samples falling within appropriate ranges specified below are in compliance with the standard.
68. The Committee noted a proposal from the Delegation of France for some amendments, on the basis of numerous analyses carried out by scientific laboratories in recent years, and consequently amended the ranges for some fatty acids in the Table.
4. Food Additives
69. The Committee reiterated its position regarding the applicability of earlier decisions to the Section on Food Additives (see para. 45).
6. Hygiene
70. See para 47.
7. Labelling
71. The Committee updated the reference to the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods with the latest amendment.
8. Methods of Analysis and Sampling
72. The Committee agreed to the proposals of the ad hoc Working Group on Methods of Analysis and Sampling concerning this standard and amended the Section as proposed (CRD 15).
Appendix
Preamble
73. The Committee agreed to amend the Preamble as agreed earlier (see para. 51).
1. Quality Characteristics
1.1 Colour
74. The Committee agreed that the provisions for Lard colour should be replaced with “white to cream” in order describe more precisely the characteristics of the product.
1.8 Acid Value
75. The Committee agreed to amend the values for Premier Jus from 2.5 to 2.0 mg KOH/g fat and Rendered Pork Fat from 2.0 to 2.5 mg KOH/g fat as it reflected current trade practice in the world.
1.9 Peroxide Value
76. The Committee had an extensive debate on the peroxide value. Some delegations proposed to distinguish between three categories of fat with different values as follows: 10 meq for Unrefined Porcine Fats and 5 meq for Unrefined Bovine Fats and Refined Bovine and Porcine Fats, while other delegations argued that there were no clear justification for the lower values and suggested to retain the levels used in the current standard. The Delegation of France supported separate values for different kinds of fats. For the sake of consistency the Committee agreed to a single figure “up to 10 meq/kg fat” for all types of animal fats. The Delegations of United Kingdom, Germany and Cuba expressed their reservations in this regard (see also paras 53-56).
2. Chemical and Physical Characteristics
77. The Committee accepted the proposal of the Delegation of France to clarify some values and replaced them as follows: the Relative density for Premier Jus in Section 2.1 from 0.893 to 0.904 (40° C/water at 20° C), the Iodine value ranges (Wijs) in Section 2.5 for Lard from 45-70 to 55-65, for Rendered pork fat from 45-70 to 60-72, for Premier Jus from 32-47 to 36-47 and for Tallow from 32-50 to 40-53 as these reflected current industry practice.
3. Methods of Analysis and Sampling
78. The Committee agreed to the proposals of the ad hoc Working Group on Methods of Analysis and Sampling and amended Section 3 as proposed in CRD 15.
Status of the Draft Standard for Named Animal Fats
79. The Committee agreed to advance the Draft Standard for Named Animal Fats to Step 8 for adoption by the 23rd Session of the Commission (see Appendix III).
Preamble
80. The Committee agreed to amend the Preamble and to use the same wording as in the Draft Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (see para. 18).
1. Scope
81. The Committee agreed to amend the Scope using the same wording as in other standards (see para. 23). It also agreed to delete the reference to oils and fats subjected to further processing with the understanding that it was already covered by the first part of the sentence, and to retain the examples of modification processes. The first paragraph of the Scope was therefore amended as follows:
This standard applies to oils and fats and mixtures thereof in a state for human consumption. It includes oils and fats that have been subjected to processes of modification (such as transesterification or hydrogenation) or fractionation.
2. Descriptions
2.2 Virgin Fats and Oils - 2.3 Cold Pressed Fats and Oils
82. The Committee agreed to include examples of mechanical procedures “e.g. expelling and pressing”, to be consistent with the Draft Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (see para. 36).
3. Food Additives
83. In order to be consistent with its earlier decisions, the Committee agreed to add the reference prohibiting the use of additives in cold pressed oils in section 3.1, and to use the provisions applicable to Vegetable Oils and to Named Animal Fats in the rest of the section (see paras 45, 69).
5. Hygiene
84. See para. 47.
6. Labelling
85. The Committee updated the reference to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods with the latest amendment.
7. Methods of Analysis and Sampling
86. The Committee accepted the proposals of the ad hoc Working Group (CRD 15) and amended this section of the standard accordingly.
Appendix
Preamble
87. The Committee decided to use the same wording as agreed earlier in the Draft Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (see para. 51).
1.6 Iron
88. In order to better reflect current practice world-wide, the Committee accepted the proposal of the Delegation of Thailand to increase the Maximum level of iron in Refined fats and oils from 1.5 mg/kg to 2.5 mg/kg.
1.9 Peroxide value
89. The Committee agreed to specify values of "Up to 15 meq/kg oil" for Virgin oils and Cold pressed fats and oils, and "Up to 10 meq/kg oil" for Other fats and oils in order to be consistent with earlier decisions on this matter.
2. Methods of Analysis and Sampling
90. The Committee agreed to the proposal of the ad hoc Working Group on Methods of Analysis and Sampling and amended the Section as proposed in CRD 15.
Status of the Draft Revised Standard for Edible Fats and Oils not Covered by Individual Standards
91. The Committee agreed to advance the Draft Revised Standard to Step 8 for adoption by the 23rd Session of the Commission (see Appendix IV).
