51. The Committee recalled that the 23rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Code at Step 5 and advanced it to Step 6. The Delegation of the Netherlands introduced the draft document and highlighted the following issues to be solved: whether or not to include primary production in the scope and dedicated transport. The Committee agreed that it would first discuss these key issues.
52. The Delegation of India stated that consideration of the Draft Code should be based on risk analysis. By referring to the Commission’s recommendation on the principles for risk analysis (ALINORM 99/37 para. 56), the Delegation expressed the view that the provisions of the Draft Code were not based on appropriate risk assessment and therefore discussion of this Agenda Item should be deferred. Several delegations pointed out that there was sufficient scientific evidence to discuss this issue, that the Code had already been considered in detail, and that the Agenda for the Session was already adopted. The Committee agreed that the situation of primary production in developing countries should be taken into consideration.
53. The Committee had an exchange of views on the scope of the Draft Code in relation to primary production. It was noted that the primary focus of the Draft Code was foods in international trade and that the transportation within primary production was more appropriately covered by commodity codes such as that to be discussed under Agenda item 6. The Committee agreed that the Draft Code should cover the food transportation unit and product from the point of shipment to the point of receipt but should not introduce additional guidelines covering operations such as growing, gathering or fishing beyond those in the General Principles of Food Hygiene. The Sections on Scope and Primary Production were amended accordingly.
54. The Delegation of India, supported by the Delegation of China, noted that it was impossible to apply the Draft Code to foods transported by traditional means such as carts, head-loads and animals and proposed to delete the example on food transported directly from the field to the market.
55. While considering the issue of dedicated transport, several delegations pointed out that Section 8.3 of the General Principles of Food Hygiene already covered this issue and that no specific provisions needed to be added to the Draft Code. Several other delegations and the Observer from the European Community indicated that bulk transportation in liquid, granulated or powder form required, in principle, dedicated transport in order to protect consumers’ health and that it should be clearly stated in the Draft Code.
56. After an extensive exchange of views, the Committee agreed to include the wording of the General Principles (Section 8.3) and to refer to dedicated transport of bulk food in liquid, granulated or powder form unless the application of principles such as HACCP demonstrated that it was not necessary.
57. The Committee reviewed the Draft Code section by section and agreed to make the following amendments as well as editorial changes.
58. In the Introduction, the last paragraph was amended to clarify the relationship with other commodity codes with examples provided for further clarity, such as reference to the existing Revised Recommended Code of Practice for the Storage and Transport of Edible Oils and Fats in Bulk.
59. In the Section on Definitions, the definition of foodstuff was deleted, as there was no additional meaning for “foodstuff” compared with food, which was already defined in the Procedural Manual. The title of the Draft Code was also amended accordingly.
60. It was also agreed that the Draft Code be formatted according to the structure of the General Principles of Food Hygiene, as it should be used in combination with the General Principles. The provisions in the Section on Establishment were moved to Section 8 Transportation, and the Section on Training was referred to as Section 10.
61. In the Section on Transportation (Food Transportation Units), the description of the thermal heating fluids was harmonized with the text of the Revised Recommended Code of Practice for the Storage and Transport of Edible Oils and Fats in Bulk.
Status of the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for the Transport of Food in Bulk and Semi-Packed Food
62. The Committee advanced the Draft Code to Step 8 for adoption at the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (See Appendix III of this report).
63. The Delegation of Germany expressed its concerns about the procedure of advancing the Code to Step 8, because of the number and extent of changes made in the text, it was not possible to see the whole document before decision.
