Minimum Data Requirements for Establishing Maximum Residue Limits Including Import Tolerances
Future Work
173. The Delegation of the UK introduced the document prepared at the recommendation of OECD Pesticide Forum (1996) and at the request of the EC and informed the Committee that the document was based on a set of preparatory meetings held in 1998 and 1999 and on the outcome of the Workshop held in York, in September 1999 to examine those areas of guidance that represented the greatest obstacles to the establishment of national MRLs and import tolerances and to the acceptance of international MRLs.
174. The Committee was informed by the Delegation of the United Kingdom that, in his view, the aims of the project were to: (i) underpin the work of the JMPR in proposing international MRLs and to support the scientific and technical basis of Codex MRLs as reference limits within the SPS Agreement; (ii) facilitate work of national registration authorities in the granting of import tolerances; and (iii) facilitate the work of national regulatory authorities in the granting of national registrations and MRLs.
175. The Committee was informed that for the least harmonized areas such as geographical zoning, minimum residue trials requirements and acceptable extrapolation/mutual support of residue trials between crops criteria were identified and recommendations for harmonisation were prepared. The Delegation of the UK suggested that the Committee would be invited to consider endorsing those recommendations and accepting the document as guidelines for data submitters.
176. The Observer from GCPF supported the concept of defining the minimum numbers of residue data by the criteria of significance in trade or in diet and noted that it was contributing to the project on geographic zones for residue data.
177. The Committee noted that the document could be helpful to governments when revising their national requirements; however, some delegations and observers pointed out that some concepts, especially the global geographical zoning concept, needed further elaboration.
178. The Observer from CI was of the opinion that it might be necessary to consider increasing the number of trials for commodities (e.g., pears) often consumed by infants and children.
179. The Committee concluded that it was premature to endorse the recommendations, as some areas needed further development. It was decided to refer the document to the 2000 JMPR for consideration and agreed that on the basis of JMPR comments the document would be further considered at the next session of the Committee.
180. In addition to those identified as new work during the session (paras 46 & 153), the Committee considered the following issue:
Revision of the Codex Classification of Foods and Animal Feeds
181. The Observer from the EC, supported by a number of delegations, indicated that there was an urgent need to update the Codex Classification, especially in relation to commodities of animal origin and tropical origin. The Committee noted that in the updating it was necessary to harmonize certain definitions with those of other Codex Committees. The Delegation of the United Kingdom suggested that while updating the Classification it would be useful to consider reviewing the sections on the portions to which the MRLs apply.
182. The Committee agreed that The Netherlands should prepare a short discussion paper on the subject for consideration at the next session so as to determine how and to what extent the Classification should be reviewed and updated and in what structure the updated version would be.
