General Considerations
Proposed Draft MRLs at Step 5
(A) DRAFT AND PROPOSED DRAFT MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS AT STEPS 7 AND 4
(B) DRAFT AND PROPOSED DRAFT EXTRANEOUS MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS
(C) GUIDELINE LEVELS
37. The Delegation of the United States informed the Committee that the US Food Quality Protection Act required greater attention to the question of residues in food, particularly children’s food, and that USEPA was actively addressing the issues of common mechanisms of action. The Delegation expressed its support for the JMPR efforts in this area and, once the US methodologies and policy were established, they would be provided to the JMPR. Based on these comments, the Delegation was of the opinion that MRLs for certain organophosphates should not advance pending results of current studies on these compounds at the national and international levels. This view was shared by the Observer from Consumers International. (see para. 22)
38. The European Community expressed its difficulties in accepting evaluations of the JMPR when: (1) all data points were accommodated in estimating an MRL without their statistical analysis; (2) an MRL was based on the combination of residue data from trials supporting different GAPs without identifying the critical GAP; and (3) an MRL was based on a GAP where no growth stage or PHI was specified or PHI was 0-day.
39. The Committee noted that those Proposed Draft MRLs/EMRL advanced to Step 5 by the Committee at its last Session had not been considered by the 45th Session of the Executive Committee due to the short interval between the sessions of the CCPR and Executive Committee. These MRLs would be considered by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) for adoption at Step 5 at its 23rd Session in 28 June-3 July this year and delegations were invited to comment prior to that Session.
Captan (007)
Carbaryl (008)
Chlorfenvinphos (014)
Chlormequat (015)
Diazinon (022)
Dicofol (026)
Dimethoate (027)
Endosulfan (032)
Ethoxyquin (035)
Fenthion (039)
Folpet (041)
Lindane (048)
Mevinphos (053)
Omethoate (055)
2-Phenylphenol (056)
Parathion (058)
Phosalone (060)
Quintozene (064)
Thiabendazole (065)
Carbendazim (072)
Disulfoton (074)
Thiometon (076)
Chinomethionat (080)
Chlorothalonil (081)
Chlopyriphos-methyl (090)
Carbofuran (096)
Methamidophos (100)
Phosmet (103)
Dithiocarbamates (105)
Ethephon (106)
Iprodione (111)
Phorate (112)
Guazatine (114)
Aldicarb (117)
Cypermethrin (118)
Phenthoate (128)
Azocyclotin (129)
Deltamethrin (135)
Phoxim (141)
Carbosulfan (145)
Cyfluthrin (157)
Glyphosate (158)
Oxydemeton-methyl (166)
Abamectin (177)
Bifenthrin (178)
Myclobutanil (181) (see Annex II)
Clethodim (187)
Tebuconazole (189) (see Annex II)
Haloxyfop (194)
Tebufenozide (196)
Fenbuconazole (197)
Aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) (198)
40. The Delegations of Chile and France and the Observer from the EC expressed their concern about the proposed draft MRL for grapes, as the fermentation process at wine production was affected by high levels of captan. They preferred a PHI of more than 0 days and a lower MRL. The Committee was informed that a full data package would be made available to the 2000 JMPR and that GAPs would likely be revised. Governments were requested to submit information on GAP and their comments on the MRL proposals to the JMPR.
41. The Committee decided to recommend to the CAC to replace all existing CXLs with temporary MRLs at the same levels as respective CXLs, as the TMDI significantly exceeds the ADI which had been reduced by the 1996 JMPR. The Committee agreed on a timeframe of 4 years for these temporary MRLs. New studies would be available for toxicological evaluation by the 2000 JMPR and periodic review of residue data in 2001. The Delegation of Germany asked for an Acute RfD to be estimated by the JMPR.
42. The Committee noted that its use on animal feedingstuffs was no longer supported. As this might not reduce the intake concerns, the Committee requested written confirmation of precise information on the availability of studies and GAP before the next CCPR.
43. The Committee decided to retain the CXLs for Brussels sprouts, head cabbages, cauliflower and carrot for 4 years under the periodic review procedure as new residue data would become available. The Committee recommended revocation of all other CXLs as these commodities were no longer supported.
44. The Observer from the EC noted that the ADI was based on a neurotoxic effect and asked that JMPR estimate an Acute RfD. The Committee was informed that two 28-day feeding studies on rat and dog were available for evaluation by the 2000 JMPR.
45. The Delegations of New Zealand and Australia highlighted that there were pressing trade issues associated with these MRLs. The Delegation of New Zealand proposed to advance these proposed draft MRLs for final adoption with omission of Steps 6 and 7. However, as new scientific information had been submitted to the JMPR for consideration in 1999, the Committee decided not to take actions on these MRLs awaiting the evaluation of the 1999JMPR.
46. At the 30th Session of the Committee, the manufacturer was requested to provide revised STMR estimates. Based on them, only the IEDI for the European diet exceeded the ADI calculated using all commodities. However, by excluding pome fruit, the IEDI did not exceed the ADI for the European diet. The Delegation of the United Stated explained that the reference dose was not exceeded for either the general population or children in the country as the US calculation included refinements such as percent of crop treated and survey data. The Committee decided to withdraw the draft MRL for pome fruit. The Committee decided to recommend revocation of the general CXL for fruits as recommended by the 1992 JMPR and to advance the MRL for milks to Step 8.
47. The Committee should consider at its next Session deletion of those CXLs recommended for withdrawal by the 1998 JMPR.
48. The Delegation of the USA and the Observer from the EC informed the Committee that they both had endosulfan under review. The US Delegation informed the Committee that new field trials on broccoli were available and encouraged the petitioners to make this data available to the JMPR.
49. The Committee was informed that the residue evaluation by the JMPR had been postponed to the year 2003 and that the following commodities would be supported: cacao bean, citrus, coffee beans, cotton seed, wine- and table grapes, hazelnut, melon (except watermelon), peach, pineapple, pome fruit, potato, soya beans, sugar beet, tea and tomato. Written confirmation of commodities supported was requested to be sent to the FAO secretary of the JMPR. The Committee should consider at its next Session revocation of CXLs which would no longer be supported.
50. The Committee noted that the 1998 JMPR had lowered the ADI. The Committee postponed deletion of the CXL on pear pending the residue evaluation by the 1999 JMPR.
51. The Delegation of Germany informed the Committee that residues in citrus fruits were only found in the inedible part of the fruit and, therefore, there was no concern for acute exposure. The Committee was informed that animal feeding studies and new data on olives would be available for the 2000 JMPR as well as data supporting the new GAP on oranges and mandarins. However, data from trials on oranges and mandarins that were planned for this year would not be available in time for evaluation in 2000.
52. The Delegation of the USA indicated that they could not support advancement of the draft MRLs pending the outcome of their cumulative risk assessment process on organophosphate pesticides.
53. Taking into account the comments of several delegations, the Committee decided to retain the draft MRLs to Step 7(7B), awaiting the residue evaluation by the 2000 JMPR.
54. The Committee was informed that review of environmental fate data was scheduled for the 1999 JMPR. The Committee should consider at its next Session deletion of those MRLs and CXLs recommended for withdrawal by the 1998 JMPR.
55. The Committee was informed that lindane was scheduled for evaluation by the JMPR in 2001 (toxicology) and 2003 (periodic review of residue data). On the question of whether or not to revoke existing CXLs, several delegations preferred to recommend their revocation at the present Session as: (1) TMDIs greatly exceeded the temporary ADI; (2) lindane had been banned in many countries; (3) lindane had limited uses; and (4) last evaluation of lindane by the JMPR was in 1989. However, as lindane was intended to be supported, the Committee decided to postpone to its next Session considerations on revocation of CXLs (except those accompanied by the letter “E” ), awaiting detailed information on which commodities would be supported and what data would become available. The Committee noted the temporary ADI would remain until 2001 when the periodic review of toxicological data was scheduled.
56. The Committee noted that residue trial data would be submitted for broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, citrus fruits, cucumber, grapes, melons (except watermelon), peas (pods and succulent = immature seeds), spinach, strawberry and tomato. It decided to maintain the CXLs for these commodities for 4 years under the periodic review procedure. The Committee also decided to recommend revocation of the CXLs for commodities use of which were no longer supported.
57. The Committee noted that omethoate was no longer supported and the 1998 JMPR had withdrawn all previous proposals. The Committee would consider withdrawal of all MRLs at the 32nd Session.
58. The Committee decided to recommend revocation of the CXL for apple and noted that data to support the CXLs for citrus fruits and pear had been submitted for the 1999 JMPR review.
59. The Committee decided to advance the draft MRL for apple to Step 8 noting some reservations.
60. The Committee decided to recommend revocation of the CXLs for citrus fruits, grapes and potato as they were no longer supported. The Committee decided to retain the CXL for apple beyond the 4 year period awaiting the 1999 JMPR review as it noted that new data had been submitted.
61. The Committee noted that the 1998 JMPR had suggested withdrawal of the CXLs for lettuce (head) and potato for consideration at the next Session of the Committee.
62. The Committee noted that CXLs for apple, citrus fruits, pear and strawberry would be supported and new data had been developed for mango and avocado.
63. The Committee also noted that the proposed draft MRL of 60 mg/kg for mushrooms (VO 0450) was missing from the list of MRLs[16] and this MRL would be discussed at the next Session at Step 4.
64. The Committee discussed the proposed draft MRLs for some animal products. The Commission of the EC was requested to submit in writing their concerns regarding the residue definition and availability of analytical methods to both JMPR/JECFA and Codex secretariats. Since thiabendazole is also used as a veterinary drug, it was stressed that coordination and harmonization between the CCPR and CCRVDF was essential.
65. The Committee recommended to revoke CXLs for cereal grains, onion bulb, sugar beet, sugar beet leaves or tops, sugar beet molasses, sugar beet pulp (dry), and tomato as recommended by the 1997 JMPR. The Committee decided to retain the CXLs for apple, citrus fruits, pear, and strawberry under the periodic review procedure as new data became available for the 2000 JMPR review.
66. The Committee noted the 1998 JMPR recommendation to withdraw the CXLs for a number of commodities and that it would considered them next year.
67. The Committee decided to return all draft MRLs to Step 6 for government comments and subsequent discussion next year.
68. The Committee recommended to revoke all CXLs as the compound was no longer supported.
69. Since the compound was no longer supported, the Committee would consider the deletion of all CXLs next year.
70. The Delegations of Brazil, France and Spain expressed their concern that the proposed draft MRL would not be sufficient for unbagged bananas, as the MRL was based on only data from bagged bananas. The Committee requested governments and concerned parties to submit information on unbagged bananas for evaluation by the JMPR.
71. The Delegation of the USA disagreed with the residue definition and expressed concern that data from Italian trials were not included in the evaluation of trial data on peach. The FAO Joint Secretary requested governments and concerned parties to provide relevant information on GAP in South Europe on peach to the JMPR for consideration together with available residue data.
72. Several delegations expressed their concern regarding the IEDI calculations made by the manufacturer as the IEDI exceeded the ADI for all regional diets. The manufacturer was willing to improve the IEDI calculation for the next Session.
73. Based on questions of the Delegations of Japan and the USA, the Committee decided to refer for further consideration by the JMPR the question on minimum data requirements to establish MRLs and STMRs for post-harvest uses.
74. The Committee decided to return the draft MRLs for barley, oats and rice to Step 6 for reconsideration at the next Session; and to recommend revocation of the CXL for maize as this commodity was no longer supported.
75. The Delegation of Australia expressed concern that the selection of certain MRLs for amendments to address the exceedence of the ADI was somewhat arbitrary and suggested the need for the development of a procedure to consistently identify appropriate risk management options, when IEDI calculations exceed the ADI. Delegations of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States of America, the EC and the Codex secretariat would prepare a paper on this subject for the next Session addressing the issue of which uses to support when the ADI was exceeded.
76. The Delegation of Thailand informed the Committee that new data would be generated on rice, maize, sweet corn, soya bean (dry) and soya bean (immature), which would be submitted to the JMPR. The Committee noted that the following crops would be supported: carrot, cotton seed, egg plant, maize, maize fodder, oats, onion bulb, rapeseed, husked rice, soya bean, sugar beet, sweet corn (corn on the cob), tomato and wheat. The Committee decided that for these crops the CXLs would remain for 4 years under the periodic review procedure, awaiting the evaluation by the JMPR in 2002. In addition, there would be support for grapes, peanut, pepper, sunflower seed and turnip. The Committee decided to recommend revocation of the CXLs for commodities not supported.
77. The Committee confirmed, as proposed by the 1997 JMPR, the CXLs for banana; cattle fat; edible offal of cattle, goats, horses, pigs and sheep; goat fat; horse fat; meat of cattle, goats, horses, pigs and sheep; milks; pig fat; sheep fat; and sugar cane.
78. The Committee noted that the compound had been scheduled for the 2002 JMPR for both residues and toxicological (Acute RfD) evaluation.
79. The Committee noted that (*) should be added to the MRL for potato because the 1997 JMPR determined that residue levels in all trials were below the limit of determination. The Committee advanced the MRLs of sorghum and sweet corn (corn on the cob) to Step 5 since it was unclear whether (*) should have been added to the MRL. The Committee requested the FAO Secretary to the JMPR to look into this problem regarding whether (*) was necessary for these MRLs. The Observer from the EC noted that, although the 1997 JMPR had concluded that an MRL for citrus fruits should be established for carbofuran and carbosulfan, only an MRL for oranges (sweet, sour) had been recommended; and requested that an MRL for mandarin be elaborated. (see para. 95)
80. It was noted that methamidophos was scheduled for a periodic review by the 2000 JMPR where an Acute RfD would be established. The Committee returned the MRL for pome fruits to Step 6 for consideration at its next Session together with the proposals for peach and tomato at Step 6.
81. The Committee noted that the residue definition should read as phosmet (parent compound only). The Committee was informed that all commodities except feijoa and kiwifruit would be supported and precise information on date availability would be provided to the Committee well in advance of the next Session. Several delegations expressed their concern regarding acute dietary intake, especially for children. The Committee requested WHO to include phosmet as one of the worked examples when the Committee considers the proposed IESTI methodology at its next Session.
82. The Committee noted that manufacturers had provided revised STMR-P estimations for EBDCs[17] and ETU[18] with regard to apple juice as requested at the last Session. The values for EBDCs and ETU in wine were already included in the STMR estimations provided to the 30th Session. The IEDIs of the EBDCs were recalculated for the 5 regional diets, resulting in the IEDIs of EBDC ranging from 3-36% of the ADI.
83. The Committee was informed that EBDC (mancozeb/maneb) trial data on apple, asparagus, banana, barley, beans, broccoli, head cabbages, cauliflower, celery, cucumber, dry beans, grapes, hops (dry), leek, head lettuce, maize, maize fodder, mandarins, melons (except watermelon), oats, onion bulb, oranges (sweet, sour), peas, pear, potato, rapeseed oil, rye, sweet peppers, summer squash, sugar beet, sweet corn (corn-on-the cob), tomato and wheat would be submitted to the JMPR for the evaluation in 2002. A toxicological evaluation of PTU[19] was scheduled for the 1999 JMPR, while residue evaluation for propineb was tentatively scheduled for 2003.
84. Several delegations regretted the unavailability of appropriate specific analytical methods for ziram and other individual dithiocarbamates in order to perform adequate and separate risk assessment.
85. The Committee noted that GAP and/or trial data had been received for cantaloupe, grapes, peppers, pineapple, and tomato together with limited data for watermelon for evaluation by the JMPR. The Committee decided to retain the draft MRLs at Step 7(7B), pending the 1999 JMPR residue evaluation.
86. The Committee noted that new indoor trials on tomato were being conducted and would be available for review by 2000 subject to scheduling for JMPR evaluation. The Committee agreed to extend the 4-year period under the periodic review procedure for the CXL for tomato.
87. The Committee decided to recommend revocation of the CXLs on barley, rape seed and tomato and to withdraw the draft MRL for carrot since these commodities were no longer supported.
88. The Committee noted the absence of an ADI for this compound. Data would be submitted in 2000 to support the CXL for citrus fruits. The Committee agreed to recommend revocation of all existing CXLs as recommended by the 1997 JMPR. However, the Committee decided to introduce a guideline level for cereal grains at 0.05 mg/kg as recommended by the 1997 JMPR and another for citrus fruits at the same level as the current CXL, pending the establishment of a new ADI.
89. The CXL for banana was recommended for revocation as no confirmation was received on the data availability.
90. The Committee invited governments to comment at Step 8 on the MRLs advanced by CCRVDF prior to the next Session of the CAC in June 1999. The Committee noted that these MRLs were different from those recommended by the CCPR. The FAO Joint Secretary of the JMPR would contact the manufacturers to determine if both cypermethrin and alpha-cypermethrin were to be reviewed together at the 2000 JMPR under the periodic review programme.
91. The Committee decided to recommend to revoke for all CXLs as the compound was no longer supported.
92. The Committee agreed to consider deletion of the existing CXLs and MRLs at its next Session, as the use of the compound would no longer be supported. Recognizing the relationship between azocyclotin and cyhexatin (67), the Committee requested information on the support of cyhexatin and which commodities would be supported before its next Session.
93. The Committee noted that MRLs estimated by the JECFA for veterinary uses would be circulated for comments at Step 3 through a circular letter, CL-RVDF. Governments were invited to coordinate their comments at the national level.
94. The Committee decided to recommend revocation of all CXLs as the compound was no longer supported for agricultural uses.
95. On the question of an MRL for oranges (sweet, sour) and the conclusion of the 1997 JMPR that an MRL for citrus fruits should be established, the Committee decided to consider the matter at the next Session. (see para. 79)
96. The Committee was informed that the CCRVDF had recommended MRLs for several animal commodities. As a follow-up to the decision of its last Session, the Committee agreed to support the MRL for milk (0.04 mg/kg on whole milk basis), which had been advanced by the CCRVDF to Step 5 for adoption by the CAC, for the sake of harmonization.
97. The Delegation of France proposed to include the metabolite AMPA[20] (198) in the residue definition (see para. 105).
98. The Committee noted the recommendation of the 1998 JMPR to withdraw a number of MRLs. The Committee requested the JMPR to clarify whether demeton-S-methyl and demeton-S-methyl-sulphon should remain in the residue definition.
99. The Committee noted that, for animal products, residue definitions were different between the CCPR and CCRVDF. Without a harmonized residue definition, the EC opposed their advancement beyond Step 6. The Delegation of Germany noted that no reference material for the metabolite 8,9-Z-avermectin B1b was available. The Committee decided to return all draft MRLs to Step 6. It further decided that information should be sought through a circular letter on the residue definition for animal products.
100. The Committee noted that the 1997 JMPR had not recommend changing the MRLs for animal products despite that a higher MRL had been proposed for wheat. The Delegation of Australia informed the Committee on processing (milling) studies on wheat which were in progress.
101. The Committee noted that this compound was scheduled for residue evaluation by the 1999 JMPR. The Committee invited Germany, the United States and the Netherlands to forward written comments on this compound to the JMPR. The Committee decided to advance the MRLs for alfalfa fodder, beans (except broad bean and soya bean), folder beet, garlic, onion bulb, peanut and tomato to Step 5 and to return all draft MRLs to Step 6.
102. The Delegations of Germany and Netherlands had already submitted extensive written comments on this compound to the Chairperson. The Delegation of France was asked to send written comments to the CCPR. The Committee postponed discussions to the next Session to fully consider these written comments.
103. The Committee noted that the information on current GAP had been provided to the JMPR by Germany. The Delegation of France withdrew its earlier reservation concerning the lack of processing studies for grapes.
104. The Delegation of the Republic of Korea informed the Committee of their national limits for a number of commodities being discussed.
105. Several Delegations expressed their reservations regarding establishing MRLs for a metabolite residue resulting from the treatment of a genetically-modified commodity with glyphosate. They stated that there must be a clear policy on how to deal with a number of issues regarding genetically modified crops. The Committee agreed that a short paper should be prepared by Canada in collaboration with Australia, South Africa, United States of America, Commission of the EC and GCPF, on the feasibility of establishing MRLs for genetically modified crops and metabolite residues for consideration at the next Session.
“Criteria” for Setting EMRLs
Need for EMRL for Camphechlor in Fish
DDT (021)
106. The Committee recalled that it had considered at its last Session document CX/PR 98/8 which had been prepared by the United States of America. The paper had addressed the issue of criteria for setting EMRLs. The Committee had agreed to the suggested CCPR positions except for those on treating outliers and violation rates. The Committee had decided that comments should be sought from Member governments on their current practices in treating outliers and on what violation rates were used.
107. Document CX/PR 99/7 had been prepared by the United States in collaboration with Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands, South Africa and the Codex Secretariat, containing the agreed CCPR positions, the new suggested positions on outliers and violation rates, the summary of government comments, and the comparison of the approaches used by this Committee and the CCFAC. In presenting the paper, the Delegation of the United States explained that the new suggested CCPR positions had been prepared for treating outliers and violation rates to accommodate divergent practices as submitted by countries and to provide for flexibility for the JMPR and governments. The Delegation proposed that discussions should focus on these two items.
108. The Committee generally supported the new suggested CCPR positions and was of the view that: EMRLs should be established to be protective of the public health in the first instance; and treatment of outliers and selection of violation rate should be on a case-by-case basis and required flexibility. Several delegations stated that the CAC had a mandate to protect consumers’ health and to facilitate international food trade and other issues for consideration were secondary to these two primary mandates. In order to provide for further flexibility, the Committee agreed to delete the term “unique” from Point 15 “Outliers” and to delete the third sentence reporting a violation rate range, considered to be inconsistent with the goal of the Committee, from the last paragraph of Point 16 “Violation Rates”. The Committee noted that the amended “Agreed CCPR position on estimation of EMRLs”[22] would be included in future working documents on MRLs/EMRLs for reference.
109. The Committee requested that the JMPR would consider providing several options when it estimates EMRLs to enable this Committee to make appropriate risk management decisions.
110. The Delegation of Australia introduced the comparison of the approaches used by the CCPR and CCFAC indicating that, while they were in parallel, there were a number of significant differences. It was also noted that the CCFAC approach was still under development within the framework of the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods. For the sake of better harmonization and consistency throughout Codex, the Committee decided to send the “Agreed CCPR Positions on Setting EMRLs” to the CCFAC for their consideration.
111. The Committee thanked the Delegation of the United States and all other parties involved in the development of the paper of their work and efforts.
112. The Committee recalled that at its last Session, in response to the request of the Delegation of Germany for an EMRL for toxaphene in fish, Germany had been asked to prepare a paper for consideration at this Session taking into consideration the FAO Manual on the Submission and Evaluation of Pesticide Residues Data for the Estimation of Maximum Residue Levels in Food and Feed and CX/PR 98/8. The Committee noted that the ISO name of toxaphene was camphechlor and agreed to use the ISO name.
113. The Delegation of Germany presented document CX/PR 99/8 which contained background information, toxicological aspects of camphechlor, analytical methods, residue definition, and estimation of a possible EMRL. The Delegation advised that all information and data currently available could be provided to the JMPR for estimation of a PTDI and an EMRL. The Committee noted that the elaboration of an EMRL for camphechlor fell within the Terms of Reference of this Committee[24].
114. Some delegations supported the elaboration of an EMRL for camphechlor for health and trade reasons. The Delegation of the United States[25] and some other delegations did not support this proposal for several reasons. Points requiring further consideration include: lack of an ADI; residue definition; intake estimates; source of the residues; relationship between residue levels and fish species/location of fish catch; portion of fish where residues were found; and risk management possibilities. It was noted that as camphechlor was an old compound, it would be more beneficial to the work of CCPR to give higher priority to newer compounds. The Committee, therefore, agreed to seek government comments on the paper through a circular letter which should also request information on trade problems and availability of monitoring data. Based on comments submitted in response to this circular letter, Germany agreed to prepare a new paper for consideration at the next Session of the Committee.
Extraneous Maximum Residue Limits
115. At the 30th Session the Committee had decided to advance the EMRL in meat to Step 5 and to discuss it again at its current Session in view of the new approach for EMRLs. However, the EMRL had not been considered by the Executive Committee and, therefore, had not been included in a circular letter. Nevertheless, because of the importance of the subject, the Chairperson opened a discussion on it again at Step 4 noting that delegations might not have been prepared.
116. The Delegation of New Zealand offered a proposal to the Committee to advance the EMRL for meat to Step 5 with omission of Steps 6 and 7 for adoption at Step 8. They noted that the JMPR had highlighted that there were no exposure problems identified and that when governments had exposure concerns they could always set lower limits at the national level when required to protect public health in their country in conformity with the provisions of the SPS Agreement. They further highlighted that this Committee had effectively dealt with the outliers and violation rate issues; no new residue data were expected; there were significant trade problems; and the evaluation of the 1996 JMPR resulted in the reconfirmation of the current temporary Codex EMRL of 5 mg/kg in meat[26].
117. The Delegations of Australia and the United States supported the proposal. However, the Delegation of Norway and Observer from the EC expressed their reservations to this proposal. The Chair referred to the discussion at the last Session and reminded the Committee that the EC had reservations with the 1996 Evaluation based on a different interpretation with regard to the selection of outliers and violation rates.
118. The Observer from the EC explicitly asked for a clarification regarding the existing trade problems, since the current CXL actually is 5 mg/kg and, although temporary, it had been adopted by the CAC. The Delegation of New Zealand gave an explanation to problems being experienced in trade due to several countries ignoring the current Codex EMRL because of its temporary status. The Delegation of Australia reported on its trade difficulties due to small violation.
119. In view of the lack of consensus, the proposed draft EMRL was advanced again to Step 5 for adoption by the CAC. The Delegation of New Zealand invited those delegations with reservations to its proposal to provide their scientific rationale and justification for their lower national limits.
120. The Chairperson, to facilitate consensus, proposed to seek comments on a level of 3 mg/kg in addition to the proposed draft EMRL of 5 mg/kg when the latter was advanced to Step 6. Using a 0.5% violation rate, 3 mg/kg seemed to be an appropriate level based on the 1996 Evaluation. However, this proposed value did not conform to the geometric progression approach used by the JMPR for estimating MRLs and EMRLs. It was decided that for requesting comments on two different values, the level of 3 mg/kg would be placed between square brackets to illustrate its status as an alternative proposal. The Chairperson suggested requesting the JMPR to consider this proposal concerning its statistical validity and non-conformity to the geometric progression on the basis of the 1996 JMPR evaluation when it reviews residue data on DDT in 2000. The Committee would then possibly be able to discuss the EMRL again at its 33rd Session, in time for advancing it to Step 8 for adoption by the CAC in 2001. The Committee accepted the Chairperson’s proposal.
121. The Delegation of New Zealand requested its opposition to the decision by the Committee not to advance the EMRL in meat be recorded in the Report. The Delegation noted that: there had been no identified intake concerns; significant trade problems had been highlighted by 2 countries; the other EMRLs for DDT had already advanced several years previously; and the sole reason provided by Norway and the EC was that they had a different level in their legislation. The New Zealand Delegation was concerned that this was not consistent with current Codex principles and was unduly delaying an urgently needed EMRL. The Delegation was also strongly opposed to the proposal put forward by the Chairperson, and agreed by the Committee, to request comments on an arbitrarily chosen value as an alternative to the JMPR recommendation. They were concerned that this was neither consistent with the established Codex principles that standards should be based on science and risk analysis, nor was it compatible with the provisions of the WTO’s SPS agreement.
Methylbromide (052)
122. After debating and recognizing other initiatives at the international level, the Committee decided to retain the current guideline levels.
