(Agenda Item 3)[2]
5) The Committee recalled that its 15th Session had returned the Draft Standard to Step 6 for redrafting in order to include the amendments introduced in the Olive Oil Standard of the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC). The 16th Session noted that the classification of olive oils was under review in the IOOC and the EC and returned the Draft Standard to Step 6 for redrafting in the light of the changes which might be introduced in the IOOC and EC standards. No further proposal was received and the current text was circulated for comments at Step 6 by CL 2000/32-FO (September 2000).
6) The Delegation of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union present at the meeting, informed the Committee that the EC was preparing new proposals for the olive oil sector, including a medium-term amendment to the classification of olive oils. The differences between the current EC rules and the Codex draft standard were likely to cause significant problems, and the EC could not accept provisions that were less stringent than Community rules.
7) The Observer from the IOOC stressed the need to update the standard in view of its importance for international trade and to discuss the standard in detail in order to make further progress.
8) The Committee agreed to proceed with its consideration of the draft standard section by section in order to identify the areas where consensus could be achieved and complete the revision of the text where possible.
Section 1. SCOPE
9) The Committee amended the Scope to make it consistent with the wording used in the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils, as proposed by the Delegation of Canada. Consequential amendments were made to Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7.
Section 2. DESCRIPTION
10) The Committee noted the proposal of the Delegation of Argentina to include an additional category of ‘refined olive oil’ in the Description. Several delegations noted that this was already included in section 3 which described the specific categories of oils. The Committee had an exchange of views on the opportunity of rearranging the text included in sections 2 and 3, or amending current definitions. However, several delegations pointed out that the present Description corresponded to current use and that it would be difficult to reach consensus on significant changes. It was also recalled that the Format of Codex Standards included product definitions in Section 2. Description and more specific requirements in Section 3. Essential Composition and Quality Factors. The Committee therefore agreed to retain the current section unchanged.
11) In Section 2.1, the Committee agreed that the correct botanical name of the olive tree should read Olea europea L., as specified in ISO/DIS 5507:1999 on Nomenclature.
Section 3. ESSENTIAL COMPOSITION AND QUALITY FACTORS
12) The Committee agreed to make the necessary corrections to the terminology in the French and Spanish versions of the standard, as pointed out by the Delegation of Tunisia and the Observer from IOOC.
13) The Committee noted that the products described in sections 3.3 Ordinary Virgin Olive Oil, 3.4 Refined Olive Oil and 3.6 Refined Pomace Oil were not allowed for sale in the member countries of the European Union. However, some delegations and the Observer from IOOC indicated that they were used in a number of countries in conformity with national regulations and current practices, whether in bulk, for industrial use or at the retail stage.
14) After a detailed discussion, the Committee agreed to retain sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 with a footnote to the effect that these products “may only be sold direct to the consumer if permitted in the country of retail sale”.
Section 3.9 Fatty Acid Composition
15) The Observer from the EC proposed to remove the values between C16:1 and C 18:2 from the Table. However the Committee noted that these values represented an important reference for many countries and they were retained. The Delegation of Argentina, referring to its written comments, proposed amendments to the fatty acid composition for myristic acid (C14:0), heptadecanoic acid (C17:0), linolenic acid (C18:3), arachidic acid (C20:0), based on the composition of olive oils in that country due to varietal characteristics and agro-climatic conditions. The Committee agreed to retain the current values.
16) The Committee had an extensive discussion on the level of linolenic acid (C18:3). The Observer from the EC, supported by some delegations of the EU, expressed the view that the current value of 0.9 % should be retained as a higher value of 1% would allow the adulteration of olive oil, whereas the standard should be as restrictive as possible in order to ensure the quality of the product. The Observer indicated that some exceptions could be granted on a case-by-case basis for specific varieties and/or areas of production but they should not be generalized to an international standard, and the production concerned was limited in quantity.
17) The Delegation of Morocco recalled that certain olive oils from the Mediterranean are characterized by a linolenic acid value generally above 0.9% and that the level of production concerned is considerable in relation to world production. The Delegation recalled that the IOOC had considered the studies carried out in the laboratories of several producing countries on the risk of fraud associated with the level of linolenic acid and concluded that it was not an indicator of authenticity by itself. As other reliable criteria existed for this purpose (sterols, triglycerides, tocopherols), a limit of 1% would not facilitate adulteration of olive oils through mixture with seed oils. The Delegation therefore strongly supported the value of 1%, in conformity with the IOOC decision taken by IOOC at its 79th Session in 1998 (Florence, Italy, Resolution. RES-3/79-IV/98, 25/11/1998).
18) The Observer from the IOOC indicated that the decision to adopt a value to 1% had been taken by consensus in IOOC after extensive studies and detailed discussion. Several delegations supported that value as there was already an international reference in IOOC and recalled that the mandate of the Committee was to harmonize the standard with that of IOOC. It was also noted that the current standard referred to a level of 1.5%. Delegations of member countries of the EU stressed the importance of the current level (0.9%) for enforcement purposes, in order to ensure the quality of olive oils in producing countries, and to prevent unfair trade practices at the international level.
19) The Committee had an extensive exchange of views and considered a range of possible options including the following: retaining 0.9% in the Table with a footnote indicating that 1% could be accepted if permitted in the country of retail sale, or that it might be acceptable for certain varieties subject to additional measures to confirm authenticity. Alternatively, it was proposed to include the value of 1% in the Table with a note allowing individual countries to apply a limit of 0.9%.
20) The Committee could not agree on this point and recognized that it would not be possible to finalize the standard for adoption by the Commission at this stage. Some delegations felt that there was no need to proceed with the revision of the standard as the situation was not likely to evolve before the next session of the Committee and the Commission should be informed accordingly. It was also noted that the review of olive oil classification in progress in the European Community would not be completed before 2003.
21) Some delegations indicated that the methodology was likely to evolve in the near future and that the level of linolenic acid might not be any longer the main parameter used to indicate adulteration, which might solve the current difficulties. Other delegations pointed out that significant progress had been achieved on the revision and that it would be preferable to proceed with this work.
Section 3.10
22) The Committee agreed that the title should refer to Desmethylsterols (Percentage of total sterols) and made some editorial changes for clarification purposes. The Delegation of Malaysia proposed to express desmethylsterols in mg/kg as this would be more accurate. However it did not appear feasible at this stage as this would entail a comprehensive revision of the values, and the Committee agreed to retain the percentage values for the time being.
Section 3.13
23) The title of Section 3.13 was amended to Stigmastadiene (Detection of refined vegetable oils) for clarification purposes
24) The Committee discussed the need to amend this section. Some delegations and the Observer from the EC pointed out that the maximum stigmastadiene content was not relevant for olive oil and olive-pomace oil and that current methodology for the determination of Minimum R1 sterene ratio was not adequate. The Delegation of Tunisia pointed out that there were no other method to establish the presence of desterolized seed oil for control purposes. The Committee agreed to retain the values for stigmastadiene content for virgin olive oils and refined olive oil and deleted the other values in this section.
Section 8. Methods of Analysis and Sampling
25) The Committee agreed with the conclusions of the Working Group on methods of analysis, as presented in CRD 6 and introduced the corresponding changes in the revised text.
Status of the Draft Revised Standard for Olive Oils and Olive Pomace Oils
26) The Committee agreed to return the Draft Standard, as amended at the present session, to Step 6 for further comments and consideration at the next session (see Appendix IV). The Observer from IOOC offered to cooperate with the UK Secretariat to facilitate further revision of the text with a view to finalizing the standard at the next session.
