7. The Committee recalled that the 21st Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission had decided that the draft Revised Standard for Honey should be elaborated through correspondence by the Government of the United Kingdom, Host Government of the Committee. The Draft Revised Standard for Honey was submitted to the 22nd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption at Step 8. The Commission agreed to return the Draft Revised Standard for Honey to Step 6 for further consideration.
8. The current Draft Revised Standard for Honey (at Steps 6/7), contained in document CX/S 00/3, was prepared by the Government of the United Kingdom on the basis of comments submitted by governments and international organizations in response to Circular Letter CL 1998/12-S. The Committee agreed to consider the new draft section by section.
|
Section 2.1 |
Scope |
10. The Committee agreed that the Standard for Honey should be prepared in three parts. The first part would apply to all honeys produced by Apis mellifera bees and cover all styles of honey presentations which were processed and intended for direct consumption. Part two would cover honey for industrial uses or as an ingredient in other foods and Part three would cover honey produced by other species of honey producing bees. The Committee noted that the work on the parts on honey not covered by Part one would constitute new work which would be subject to approval by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
11. In order to clarify that the Standard would cover any honey in bulk containers which may be sold as retail, the Committee agreed to amend Section 1.2 to read “Parts one and three of the Standard also cover honey which is packed for sale in bulk containers, which may be repacked into retail packs.”
|
Section 2.2 |
Description |
3. Essential Composition and Quality Factors
13. The Committee agreed that no substances should be added to honey, not even components of honey but that honey can be blended with other honey. Therefore the first sentence of section 3.1 was amended as follows: “Honey sold as such shall not have added to it any food ingredient, including food additives, nor shall any other additions be made other than honey”.
14. While considering the issue of filtration, several Delegations were of the opinion that the filtration should be restricted so that no pollen or constituents particular to honey should be lost. It was proposed that specification applied for filtration should be clearly given. It was pointed out that pollen was used to identify the botanical and geographical origin of honey and loss of pollen through filtration would undermine the labelling provisions as far as the authenticity of the honey was concerned.
15. Some other Delegations were of the view that filtration was an established process accepted by consumers to assure honey was free from foreign objectionable matters and that the existence or absence of pollen had a negligible influence on preventing adulteration.
16. The Committee agreed that if honey had undergone filtration the final product should be labelled accordingly under the section for labelling. The Committee also agreed to slightly modify the third sentence of section 3.1, to read “No pollen or constituent particular to honey may be removed except where this is unavoidable in the removal of foreign inorganic or organic matter.”
|
Section 3.4 |
Moisture Content |
|
Section 4. |
Contaminants |
19. In order to address the use of veterinary drugs for treatment of honey bees, the Committee agreed to amend the heading of Section 4.2, to read “Residues of Pesticides and Veterinary Drugs” and refer the issue to the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods.
|
Section 5. |
Hygiene |
|
Section 6 |
Labelling |
22. Regarding the designation of honeydew honey, opinion was divided on whether its use was compulsory or voluntary; in countries where blossom honey represented a major part of the national honey market, the designation of honeydew honey was regarded as compulsory. The Committee decided, however, that designation of honeydew honey should remain voluntary and agreed to the following wording for section 6.1.3: “For products described in 2.1.2 the word “honeydew” may be placed in close proximity to the name of the food.”
23. The Committee agreed to the proposal of the Delegation of Poland to include a new labelling provision for the mixture of blossom honey and honeydew honey, to read: “For mixtures of the products described in 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 the name of the food may be supplemented with the words “a blend of honeydew honey with blossom honey.”
24. Some countries indicated that the provisions of the proposed section 6.1.7 might be duly covered by the Section 4.5 of the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (CODEX STAN 1-1985). In order to address the specific interest of consumers in the origin of this commodity, the Committee decided however to amend this section, to read: “Where honey has been designated according to floral, plant source, or by the name of a geographical or topological region, then the name of the country where the honey has been produced shall be declared.”
25. The Committee agreed to simplify the definitions of different extraction methods from combs of honey under section 6.1.9 by deleting the words “with or without the application of moderate heat”. It agreed further to delete the word “only” from item (a) of the same section.
26. The Committee also agreed to the proposal of South Africa to include “chunk honey” as an alternative term for cut comb in honey in section 6.1.10 (c).
27. The Committee had an extensive debate on heating and pasteurisation of honey in conjunction with its labelling requirement. Some Delegations proposed that pasteurised honey should be labelled accordingly. The Committee, recalling that the agreed text of section 3.2 excluded the heating or processing of honey to an extent that its essential composition is changed and/or its quality was impaired, and decided not to included a specific provision addressing pasteurization under the section for labelling. The Committee noted that section 3.1 of the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods might give a certain guidance to address consumers’ concern in this respect.
28. In relation to the labelling of filtered honey some Delegations reiterated their view that all honeys were filtered to some extent and that only a process which involved the removal of all pollen should be labelled and the term “ultrafitration” was proposed in place of “filtration.” The Committee could not agree to this but being aware of the necessity to keep in conformity with the third sentence of section 3.1, decided that the process of filtration should be indicated on the labelling and agreed on the wording “Honey which has been filtered in such a way as to result in a significant removal of pollen shall be designated ‘filtered honey’” (Section 6.1.12 of the Annex).
29. In the course of the discussion concerning the quality of honey, some Delegations noted that quality requirements should include antibiotic activity. However, the Committee agreed to replace the word “manufacturer” with the words “producer, processor” in Section 6.2.1.
7.3 Determination of sugars added to honey (authenticity)
30. The Committee agreed to delete AOAC 979.22 for TLC (thin layer chromatography) from under section 7.3.
ANNEX
31. The Committee confirmed that the disclaimer appearing at the top of the Annex should be retained, while noting that its retention would not change the legal status of the Annex.
32. The Committee agreed to re-examine the appropriate location for the provisions now included in the Annex. The Delegation of Argentina, supported by the Delegation of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, proposed to move all provisions concerning composition and quality factors to the body of the Standard. The Committee finally agreed to move Sections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Annex only to Section 3 of the body of the Standard which were renumbered as 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7, respectively.
33. The Delegation of Australia and the Delegation of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, expressed their reservations on this decision.
34. The Committee noted the explanation given by an expert of Apimondia that the new alternative methods, such as the chromatographic measurements of fructose and glucose content (2.2.1.1), sucrose content (2.2.1.2) and electrical conductivity (2.2.4) were now accessible to developing countries, thus the old non-specific methods could be replaced by the modern methods for determining specific sugars.
35. The Committee noted that as a result of the transition from the non-specific methods to the more modern methods it would be necessary to adjust accordingly the levels of specific sugars in the Draft Standard. The Committee further agreed that some botanical names should be corrected.
Alternative Section 1.1 (new Section 3.5 of the body of the Standard) Sucrose Content
36. The Delegation of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, while not opposing to the adoption of the text as it stood, asked the Committee to record its position that the value for item (b) should be 60 g/100g.
Alternative Section 1.3 (new Section 3.7 of the body of the Standard) Electric Conductivity
37. With respect to the enquiry of the Delegation of France concerning the rationale of the exceptions under (c), the Committee noted the clarification by the Secretariat that the value of electrical conductivity of those honeys mentioned in (c) was extremely variable and no specific limit could be applied.
Section 1.4 (new Section 1.1) Acidity
38. The Committee agreed that the title of this section be corrected to read “Free Acidity.”
Section 1.5 (new Section 1.2) Diastase Activity
39. The Delegation of the United States proposed to retain the value of 3 Schade Unit, which was the value included in the existing Standard for Honey and requested that a scientific justification should be needed to change that value to 8 Schade Unit. The Delegation of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union referred to the existing European Directive and argued that the value of 8 Schade Unit was justified after many years of experience.
40. After in-depth debate the Committee, recognized that some countries may still have difficulties with the proposed value of 8 Schade Unit. However the second part of the current wording in the Section might overcome these difficulties and the Committee therefore agreed to retain the wording as it stood in the Draft Standard.
Section 1.6 (new Section 1.3) Hydroxymethylfurfural Content
41. The Committee had a lengthy debate on the maximum amount of hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF). Several countries favoured reducing the current content from 80 mg/kg to 40 mg/kg while others argued that such reduction was not achievable in countries with hot climate and when honey was shipped to distant markets. Therefore the reduction might be considered a barrier to trade. Different opinions were also expressed regarding the amount of HMF for industrial honey and blends of honey.
42. The Committee finally agreed to a proposal made by the Chairman to read: “The hydroxymethylfurfural content of honey after processing and/or blending shall not be more than 40 mg/kg. However, in the case of honey of declared origin from countries or regions with tropical ambient temperatures, and blends of these honeys, the HMF content shall not be more than 80 mg/kg.
43. The Delegation of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, indicated that it could accept the Chairman’s proposal as part of an overall compromise on the Draft Revised Standard. However, it expressed its regret that the Committee was unable to agree to the EU’s preferred solution, that was that the limit of 80 mg/kg be restricted to honey for industrial uses coming from tropical climate.
44. The Delegation of the United States expressed its reluctant consent to this decision.
2.2 Sample Preparation
45. The Committee agreed to the proposals submitted by Poland and the Slovak Republic that the sample preparation for the measurement of HMF should be done without heating.
Section 2.2.2. Determination of Apparent Sucrose Content
46. The Committee agreed to delete the methods mentioned under this section.
Sections 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7
47. The Committee agreed to include the proposed methods appearing under sections 2.2.4 (alternative), 2.2.5. 2.2.6 and 2,2,7.
48. The Committee noted the comment by the Delegation of Italy that Phadebas method (2.2.6.2) was only suitable for honeys with a diastase activity between 6 and 40 Shade Unit and agreed that this comment should be directed to the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling
|
Section 2.3 |
Literature references |
STATUS OF THE DRAFT REVISED STANDARD FOR HONEY
50. The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Revised Standard for Honey to the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption at Step 8. (See Appendix II to this report)
