96. The Committee recalled that its 13th Session had agreed to undertake the revision of the Code of Ethics in view of significant changes at the international level since its previous revision in 1985. Following approval of this new work by the 23rd Session of the Commission, the current text had been revised by the Secretariat in the light of the proposals received in reply to CL 1999/19-GP and circulated at Step 3 for comments. In view of time constraints, the Committee did not consider the Code section by section but had an exchange of views to identify the areas which needed further clarification.
97. Several delegations stressed the need to clarify the status of the Code in international trade, especially in relation to the SPS and TBT Agreements; in addition the consequences of non-compliance with the provisions of the Code should be addressed.
98. Some delegations pointed out that Codex standards and related texts were usually addressed to governments and that some clarification was needed as to the scope of the Code, especially whether it applied to governments or to producers. It was noted that the Code applied to all those engaged in international trade and that this would apply to all sectors involved in the production, transport and distribution of food, as reflected in Section 7.
99. The Delegation of Malaysia, referring to its written comments, made the following proposals: specific provisions should refer to the consideration of developing countries, including the Introduction; Article 6.1(b) should refer to the SPS and TBT Agreements; and the definition of food should be amended to include dietary supplements and functional foods. The Observer from ICGMA supported the proposals of the Delegation of Malaysia concerning the reference to the SPS Agreement, since consistency in the measures applied was an important concern for developing countries.
100. The Delegation of India proposed to take into account the needs of developing countries with additional text based on the provisions of Articles 9 and 10 of the SPS Agreement, and stressed that countries should not export food which did not correspond to their own standards, which should be reflected in Article 6.
101. The Delegation of Canada pointed out that the current text in Article 5 was too prescriptive and should rather recommend that national standards should 'take into account' Codex standards and related texts but that in the final analysis it was the national standards that applied. Some delegations expressed the view that national standards should be in accordance with Codex standards, as indicated in the current text.
102. The Delegation of Kenya proposed to add to the Preamble of the Code that "religious and cultural factors should, as far as practically possible, be respected in the promulgation of food standards".
103. The Representative of WTO recalled that the provisions of the TBT Agreement required member countries to base their technical regulations on international standards when they exist or their completion is imminent, and proposed that the text could refer to national standards based on Codex standards. The Representative also indicated that the code would be considered as relevant under the SPS Agreement to the extent its provisions applied to sanitary matters, and that the provisions on notification corresponded to the requirements of SPS and TBT.
104. The Delegation of Austria proposed to amend the title to a "Code of Ethics and General Principles", and to include consideration of other legitimate factors. The Committee noted some other proposals as follows: in order to simplify the text of Article 5, the references to specific classes of standards could be avoided; foods for infants and young children should be distinct from foods for special dietary uses; the order of the provisions in Article 7 should be reviewed. The Delegation of Brazil proposed some amendments to Articles 9 (exchange of information) and 11 (developing countries).
105. Some delegations supported the inclusion of a reference to the resolutions of the World Health Assembly as regards foods for infants and young children, while other delegations expressed the view that this was too vague and the Code should only mention specific texts. The Delegation of Switzerland pointed out that the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses had not yet taken a decision on the inclusion of a reference to WHA Resolutions[15] and that consistency should be sought between all Codex texts in this regard.
106. The Observer from Consumers International proposed to include a reference to openness and transparency, defined as "good governance" and including the selection of experts for risk assessment.
107. Some delegations pointed out that all food should conform to the same standards, including under food aid programmes and exceptional circumstances, and that there should be no exceptions to the provisions of the code. The Secretariat recalled that this question was specifically addressed in Article 2.1 of the Scope, which covered food aid.
STATUS OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT REVISED CODE OF ETHICS FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN FOOD
108. The Committee agreed to return the Proposed Draft Code to Step 3 for redrafting by the Secretariat in the light of the comments received and the above discussion, for consideration at the next session.
