CODEX COMMITTEE ON MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS
6) The Committee recalled that its 25th Session (1997) had considered the labelling provisions in the draft standards for milk and milk products and referred them back to the CCMMP for clarification on several points. The Third Session of the CCMMP (1998) had further considered and amended these provisions and had also finalized the Draft General Standard for the Use of Dairy Terms. The Committee considered the provisions put forward by the CCMMP (ALINORM 99/11, Appendices II to XI) and made the following amendments and remarks.
Draft General Standard for the Use of Dairy Terms
7) The Committee agreed with the proposal of the Delegation of the United Kingdom to amend the titles of the sections so that they should read as follows 4.2 Use of the Term Milk; 4.3 Use of the Names of Milk Products in Codex Commodity Standards; 4.4 Use of Terms for Reconstituted and Recombined Milk Products; 4.5 Use of Terms for Composite Milk Products.
8) In section 4.1.2, the Delegation of India expressed the view that the standard should not require the identification of the animal from which milk had been derived. In section 4.3.3, the Delegation of Canada proposed to delete the requirement to specify the limits of compositional modifications in the case of modified products as this provision was unnecessary and too restrictive. The Committee however agreed to retain the current text.
9) The Delegation of Germany, speaking on behalf of the member states of the European Union, stressed the need to provide clear information to the consumer and proposed that protein standardization of milk should always be declared in the labelling. The Committee agreed with this proposal and amended the last paragraph of section 4.2.3 to read as follows: "the adjustment is declared in accordance with Section 4.2.2 of this standard".
10) The Delegation of Malaysia, referring to its written comments, proposed to amend section 4.6.2 concerning the use of dairy terms for other foods, in order to allow the marketing of products which were traditionally used with those names (such as coconut milk) and products where the milk components had been substituted with other non-milk components to meet consumer demand, such as filled milk. The Delegation pointed out that this was necessary to allow technological innovation and address problems such as allergies, while offering a wide choice to the consumer.
11) Some delegations supported this proposal as it would allow the use of dairy terms for other foods, where the milk components have been substituted with non-milk components. Other delegations recalled that the standard had already been extensively discussed in the CCMMP and supported its endorsement without amendments; they pointed out in particular that the amendment to section 4.6.2 would represent a major change in the overall focus of the standard. The Committee agreed that the current provisions of section 4.6.2 allowed for the marketing of traditional products using dairy terms and retained the current text of that section.
12) The Committee also agreed with the proposal of the Delegation of the United Kingdom to add the following footnote to section 4.6.3 for clarification purposes: "This excludes descriptive names as defined in section 4.1.1.3 of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (GSLPF) and ingredients lists as defined in section 4.2.1.2 of the GSLPF providing the consumer would not be mislead."
13) The Committee endorsed the provisions in the Draft General Standard for Dairy Terms with the amendments mentioned above.
Common Labelling Provisions in Milk Products Standards
14) The Delegation of Denmark, supported by the Delegation of Norway, proposed that milk fat content should be declared in all cases because this information was an important competition factor as well as an element in the consumer’s choice as related to the quality of the product and its nutritional value. Other delegations expressed the view that the consequences of such an amendment should be carefully considered and that the need for milk fat declaration depended on the nature of the standard. The Committee agreed to retain the current text.
15) The Committee agreed with the proposal of the Delegation of Canada to indicate that when reference was made to servings, the declaration was made by serving "as quantified in the label" in conformity with the Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling. The Committee agreed to introduce this wording in all sections referring to milk fat declaration and milk protein declaration per serving to ensure that the standards were consistent.
Labelling Provisions in Individual Standards
16) The Delegation of Hungary proposed to delete the reference to butter for products with more that 95% fat as this would mislead the consumers. Other delegations pointed out that there was a need to distinguish between butter and pure milk fat products, and that the current provisions were intended to provide clear information to consumers on the nature of the product by requiring a descriptor for butter above 95% fat. The Committee agreed to retain the current text.
17) The Committee endorsed the labelling provisions in the Draft Standards for Milk and Milk Products as presented in ALINORM 99/11, Appendices IV to XI with the amendment mentioned in para.15 above.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
Draft Revised Standard for Pineapples
18) The Committee recalled that the CCFFV had introduced a change in the general wording referring to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods in view of the fact that pineapples are not usually prepackaged. The Committee agreed that it was preferable to use the standard wording as follows: "In addition to the provisions of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (CODEX STAN 1-1985, Rev. 1-1991), the following specific provisions apply." The labelling section was therefore amended accordingly.
CODEX COMMITTEE ON SUGARS AND HONEY
Draft Standard for Sugars
19) The Committee had an exchange of view on the opportunity of deleting the reference to a maximum amount of starch in the list of Ingredients (section 5.2), as proposed by the Delegation of the United States. Some delegations supported retaining this information as this would prevent the addition of excessive amounts of starch and the Committee agreed to retain the current wording.
20) The Committee agreed to delete the second paragraph concerning the presence of anticaking agents as this was covered by the section on additive class names in the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (section 4.2.2.3).
