92. The Committee recalled that the Draft Code had been returned to Step 6 by the 22nd Session of the Commission for further comments and consideration by the Committee, as it appeared that no consensus existed on some important issues related to the prevention of contamination. Further comments as Step 6 had been requested in CL 1997/20-FO (July 1997) and CL 1998/41 (November 1998). The Committee considered the Code section by section in the light of the comments received and made the following amendments.
Use of the Code
93. The Delegation of Malaysia was of the view that Codex had a role in setting up codes of an advisory nature for voluntary application by industry, and that such advisory provisions were not for application by governments. The Delegation proposed to retain the statement that the Code was advisory in nature and to add that it was “for voluntary application by the industry”.
94. The Committee recalled that the 22nd Session of the Commission had recommended to avoid using the terms “advisory” and “mandatory” in view of the confusion created by such terms, and agreed to delete the sentence on the advisory nature of the Code from the text.
95. The Delegation of Malaysia expressed the view that a decision to delete this reference would be premature as this question was still under discussion in the CCGP and the Commission, and Codex recognized the elaboration of advisory texts. The Secretariat recalled that the CCGP was still discussing the status of Codex texts and especially non-essential provisions in the standards under the TBT Agreement; such provisions were described as “advisory” for simplification purposes in some sections of the CCGP report in order to reflect the discussions of that Committee. However, the Commission had made a general recommendation concerning the use of this term in Codex texts, in order to reflect that Codex texts were not mandatory but used as a reference in international trade. As regards voluntary application by commercial partners, this concept had been introduced by the Commission to describe provisions which were not essential to ensure health protection and fair trade practices, and the CCFO had agreed that it applied to some sections of the standards under consideration. No such proposal had been made by the Commission in relation to Codex texts related to food hygiene and food safety. The provisions of the Code of Practice were intended to ensure health protection, and such requirements were consistently considered as the responsibility of governments in the framework of Codex. In addition, the Committee recalled that according to the reply from the SPS Committee, no distinction was made between different categories of Codex texts for the purposes of the SPS Agreement, as their relevance was determined by their contents.
96. The Committee agreed to the proposal of the Delegation of Norway to delete the recommendation that “newcomers to the field” use the principles of the Code as it should be generally relevant for all operators. The Committee recognized that this sentence was not really necessary as it was clear that the provisions in a Recommended Code of Practice were of a general application, and it was deleted.
97. The Committee agreed to transfer the sentence on the applicability of the code “to all crude or processed edible oils and fats” to the Scope for clarification purposes. The reference to the information available from other associations was deleted to ensure that the Code should be self-contained, and the complete section on Use of the Code was therefore deleted.
98. The Delegation of Malaysia expressed its strong reservation to the deletion of the first sentence concerning the advisory nature of the Code and the deletion of the third sentence relating to the use of the code by “newcomers to the field”.
1. Scope
99. The Committee agreed that the Code should apply “to the handling, storage and transport of all crude or processed edible fats and oils in bulk” without any additional text, as this definition adequately reflected the Scope. The reference to minimum requirements was deleted as it did not appear necessary.
100. The Committee noted that since the revision of the Code had been initiated, the Recommended International Code of Practice - General Principles of Food Hygiene (GPFH) had been adopted, and the Commission had recommended that Codes of Hygienic Practice refer to the General Principles and include only additional material which was specific to the commodity concerned[11].
101. The Delegation of Germany indicated that it supported dedicated transport and recalled that the CCFH was currently elaborating a Code of Hygienic Practice for the Transport and Storage of Foods in Bulk and Semi-Packed Foodstuffs[12], and stressed the necessity for consistency in the approach followed for fats and oils in bulk. The Observer from the EC informed the Committee that dedicated transport for foodstuffs was a basic principle of EC legislation for transport in bulk, although some derogations could be made for maritime transport, and expressed the view that the format of the GPFH and the recommendations of the CCFH should be followed; however, that should not prevent the revision of the current draft.
102. The Committee had an exchange of views on the opportunity of redrafting the Code in the light of recent developments and recommendations in the area of food hygiene, especially the integration of the GPFH and the HACCP approach. Several delegations pointed out however that considerable work had been done to update the code, that the CCFH Code explicitly excluded fats and oils from its Scope and that the revision should therefore proceed independently in view of the specificity of fats and oils. The Committee agreed to proceed with the finalization of the code as this was a high priority, with the understanding that the CCFH would be informed of this work and that the format of the code might be revised at a later date.
2.1.3 Contamination
103. The Committee recalled that the current text referring to several lists included in Annex 2 - Bibliography did not adequately address the problems of contamination, as there had been no consensus on that section so far, and agreed that specific lists should be developed in the framework of the Code. The Committee recognized that two approaches existed concerning the prevention of contamination from previous cargoes: the establishment of a list of banned previous cargoes or a list of acceptable previous cargoes. The Delegation of the Netherlands pointed out that a mechanism should be found to determine whether the substances which were not included in any list could be allowed.
104. The Delegation of Germany and the Observer from the EC informed the Committee that EC legislation, which ensured effective control of contamination, referred only to a List of Acceptable Cargoes, which had been prepared on the basis of risk assessment carried out by the Scientific Committee for Foods, and referred to the need for such evaluation of the lists to be included in the Code. The Committee noted that the lists could be submitted for consideration and advice to the CCFAC or the CCFH, but that they should be developed initially by the CCFO in view of its specific expertise in this area.
105. The Committee noted that this question could not be entirely solved at this stage, as careful consideration should be given to the contents of the list but decided in principle that reference would be made to both lists, and to the cargoes which were not covered by any of them, in order to facilitate the finalization of the text. The section was therefore amended to reflect that contamination was avoided as follows:
106. Some delegations and the Observer of FOSFA drew the attention of the Committee to the difficulties which might be created by the third categories of cargoes, and by the existence of several lists, which could cause confusion in international trade.
107. The Committee agreed that a Circular Letter would ask for information on the Lists of Acceptable and of Banned Cargoes used in member countries and international organizations, in order to develop Proposed Draft Lists (Appendices 2 and 3) for circulation at Step 3 and consideration by the next session of the Committee. Other issues related to the development of the lists would also be considered as required, in particular the establishment of criteria for inclusion of substances on the lists.
108. In order to provide relevant advice in the current text, and as an interim measure, the Committee agreed to clarify that until the lists were finalized, reference could be made to the data in the Appendix on Bibliography (which was renumbered as Appendix 4).
3.1.5 Heating Facilities - Tanks
109. The Committee agreed to clarify the second introductory paragraph to reflect that heating means should be such as to avoid contamination by design, construction and procedures, and to add that “Suitable means of heating are as follows” before listing heating means.
3.1.5© External Heat Exchangers
110. The Committee retained the first sentence describing the use of external heat exchangers and added a second sentence specifying that their design and construction should be such as to avoid contamination and damage to the oil, and that “there should be procedures in place to detect incidents of leakage should they occur”.
111. The Committee agreed that the use of Thermal Heating Fluids could be allowed on the basis of safety evaluation and inspection procedures, and that evidence to that effect might be required by competent authorities. The current text was therefore replaced with the following sentence:
Although hot water and steam are the preferred means of heating, other substances may be used on the basis of safety and risk evaluation and inspection procedures. Upon request by competent authorities, evidence may be required to demonstrate that the heating media employed have been properly evaluated and safely used.
112. The Committee noted that it was preferable to refer to “competent authorities” in general, without mentioning importing countries as the exporting countries might also apply specific procedures in this area. It was also agreed not to refer to contracting parties. The Delegation of Norway indicated that it could be necessary in the future to consider the application of the HACCP approach to prevent contamination, although the present text was acceptable as an interim measure.
3.1.8 Control of Temperature
113. The reference to “automatic control devices” was deleted as it was recognized that not all ships were equipped with automatic systems, and it was sufficient to mention “control devices”.
3.1.10 Inert Gas Protection
114. The sentence referring to further details to be obtained from gas manufacturers was deleted as the Code should be self-contained.
3.2.3 Insulation and Heating
115. A sentence on the use of steam for clearing pipelines in temperate and cold climates was added for clarification purposes, as proposed by the Delegation of Malaysia.
4.1.3 Temperature during Loading and Discharge
116. The Committee had an exchange of views on the proposal from the Delegation of Spain to replace the reference to “soft grades” (of oils) with “low viscosity grades” and “hard grades” with “high viscosity grades” as related to the temperatures applied. The Observer of IFMA pointed out that the loading temperature was not determined by the viscosity but by the melting point, and the Committee agreed to amend the text accordingly.
4.1.4 Loading and Unloading Sequence
117. The reference to “fresh oil” was replaced by “new oil” for clarification purposes. The Committee discussed the opportunity of retaining the requirements concerning the first pumpings in separate tanks for quality checks. The Observer from FOSFA pointed out that for fats and oils intended for direct human consumption first pumpings should necessarily be collected in a separate tank. The Committee agreed to retain this sentence and to specify that oils should be collected in separate tanks “where possible”.
Appendix 1
118. The Committee agreed to delete the subtitle mentioning the temperatures ranges recommended by the International Association of Seed Crushers as the Code should be self-contained and reference to other organizations should be avoided.
119. The Committee agreed to introduce the following amendments to temperatures, as proposed in written comments: 1) storage and bulk shipments for lard and tallow, to take into account the constraints of industrial operators (proposed by France and Netherlands), and 2) loading and discharge for lard, to harmonize it with ISO 5555/91 (proposed by UNEGA).
Appendix 2 - Bibliography
120. The Appendix was renumbered as Appendix 4 in view of the earlier decision to develop Appendix 2 (List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes) and Appendix 3 (List of Banned Immediate previous Cargoes). The Bibliography in the Annex was retained, as an interim measure and pending the development of the Lists (see para 105).
121. The Delegation of Malaysia, while supporting the adoption of the revised text in view of the considerable progress achieved, reiterated its position that the advisory nature of the Code should be specified, as originally intended, and that the advice of the Executive Committee and the Commission should be sought on this matter.
122. The Delegation of the United States pointed out that the Code should be submitted to the CCFH, although that should not delay its adoption at Step 8 by the Commission. The Committee noted that the endorsement of hygiene provisions by the CCFH was the usual procedure. Following its adoption by the Commission, the Code would therefore be submitted to CCFH, and the advice provided would be taken into account as part of the ongoing review of the Code.
Status of the Draft Revised Code of Practice for the Transport of Edible Fats and Oils in Bulk
123. The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Revised Code to the 23rd Session of the Commission for adoption at Step 8 (see Appendix V). The Committee further agreed that Proposed Draft Appendices 2 and 3 would be circulated for comments at Step 3 and consideration at the next session, subject to the approval of the Commission.
