(Agenda Item 6)[7]
67) The 23rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted the above Code at Step 8 with the understanding that Appendices 2 and 3 of the List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes and the List of Banned Immediate Previous Cargoes had still to be developed.[8] As a result, information and proposals on the substances to be included in the lists were requested under CL 1999/3-FO. On the basis of the comments received, the UK Secretariat prepared tables detailing substances proposed for inclusion either in the List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes or in the List of Banned Immediate Previous Cargoes. The lists were attached to CL 2000/44-FO as Appendices 2 and 3 respectively and circulated for comments at Step 3.
Appendix 2 - Proposed Draft List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes[9]
68) The Committee noted that the Proposed Draft List comprised those substances, which had been approved as previous cargoes by the European Commission’s Scientific Committee for Food (SCF); the
International Federation of Oil, Seeds and Fats Association (FOSFA); and the National Institute of Oilseed
Products (NIOP).
69) The Committee had an extensive discussion on the need to incorporate those substances that were not included in the Proposed Draft List but were listed on the Joint FOSFA/NIOP International List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes.
70) The Observer of FOSFA stated that the harmonised FOSFA/NIOP Acceptable List truly reflected the international trade and was used as a basis for contracts. Additionally, differences between the Proposed Draft List and the FOSFA/NIOP Lists might cause significant problems to the trade. He called for the Committee to harmonise both lists in order to avoid potential errors and trade disputes. In addition, he pointed out that some compounds common to both the FOSFA and the NIOP Lists had been already allowed in the EC legislation although they had not yet been included in the SCF’s List.
71) The Delegation of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Member states of the European Union present at the session, supported the principle of a positive list based on substances present on all three lists (FOSFA/NIOP/SCF), and stated that further amendments could be made at a later stage in light of new scientific data. This view was shared by a number of delegations. In this regard, the Committee recalled its earlier decision to refer to both lists: a list of acceptable previous cargoes and a list of banned previous cargoes, which had been approved by the Commission as new work.[10]
72) Several delegations were in favour of expanding the Proposed Draft List to cover those compounds included in the FOSFA International List but not covered by the SCF’s List. A number of delegations expressed their concern with the addition of such substances in the cargo lists as this could not only affect the quality of the product but could also pose a risk to consumers health. The safety of these substances should therefore be assessed before including them in the list. In this regard, the Committee noted that the substances which were not yet included in the Proposed Draft List could still be acceptable subject to bilateral agreements, as specified in the Code.
73) The Delegation of Canada, while supporting the development of a list based on those substances which were common to the FOSFA/NIOP/SCF List, stressed the need to establish a process for amending the appendices as well as criteria for evaluating substances before considering any proposal for amendments. This view was shared by the Delegation of the United States which emphasised that the development of these criteria should rest with the Committee that had the necessary expertise and should not be brought to the attention of any other Codex committees as this could delay the adoption of the Appendices.
74) In this respect, the Committee was informed that the list of substances included in both Appendices did not need to be endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants since that Committee dealt with food additives and contaminants present in the product due to technological process but not arising from potential contamination of fats and oils shipped in tanks or in the transport vessels. The Committee noted that the CCFAC had already decided that it was not its responsibility to endorse such lists in reply to a request from CCFO.[11] Therefore, the Committee agreed to delete the sentence referring to the endorsement of the substances contained in the lists by the CCFAC.
75) The Committee discussed how to clearly reflect the non-exhaustive character of the Proposed Draft List to take into account the concern of a number of delegations. In view of this, the Committee agreed to insert a footnote at the end of the first sentence of Note (1) to indicate that the list was currently under development. In addition, following the proposal of the Delegation of Indonesia, the Committee modified Note (3) to make it clear that the list was not necessarily a final list. The Committee also agreed to include ‘reactivity with fats/oils of contaminating residues’ as an additional criterion to be considered when carrying out risk assessment for the inclusion of substances in the cargo list. The Delegation of Japan expressed the view that both additions to and deletions from the list should be based on scientific grounds.
Status of the Proposed Draft List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes
76) The Committee agreed to forward the Proposed Draft List as contained in Appendix 2 of CL 2000/44-FO including the Notes with the corresponding amendments to the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption at Step 5/8, with the omission of Steps 6 and 7 (see Appendix III). This decision was taken with the understanding that the list would be kept under review to allow further revision for the inclusion of other compounds listed in the FOSFA/NIOP List. The Delegation of Malaysia, supported by the delegations of Indonesia, the Philippines and the United States, expressed its disagreement with the decision to postpone the inclusion of these substances in the Proposed Draft List.
77) Following this decision, the Committee agreed on a list of substances to be circulated for comments and consideration at Step 3 by the next session of the Committee. The Circular Letter would request supporting documentation on the safety assessment of these substances as well as proposals for new additions and/or deletions. In making this decision, the Committee encouraged member countries and international organisations to submit their comments in a timely manner in order to facilitate discussion at the next CCFO. The Committee adopted this as its procedure to introduce amendments to the lists. The Committee agreed on a number of compounds to be included in the Proposed Draft List at Step 3 at the request of Malaysia, the United States and FOSFA International (see Appendix VI).
Appendix 3 - Proposed Draft List of Banned Immediate Cargoes[12]
78) The Committee agreed to delete the sentence into square brackets for consistency with its previous decision (see also para. 73). It decided to remove the Notes with the exception of Point (2) since the Committee felt no need to have them for banned cargoes. Some delegations pointed out that traceability was an important aspect to take into account in order to ensure consumer protection.
79) Since the Committee had already decided to work on two lists, it was considered that, in order to avoid any possibility of inclusion of hazardous compounds in the positive list, the list of banned cargoes should widely cover those compounds that might present health risks. The Committee agreed to enlarge the Proposed Draft List of Banned Immediate Cargoes to include all those substances listed in both the FOSFA International List of Banned Immediate Previous Cargoes and the NIOP Unacceptable Prior Cargo list. In this regard, the Delegation of Malaysia expressed its reservation on the decision to include substances that were not common to both FOSFA and NIOP lists.
80) The Observer of FOSFA expressed concern regarding substances which were banned as second or third previous cargoes as these were not considered in the present Proposed Draft List. The Committee noted that the same procedure followed for the inclusion of compounds in the positive list would be applied for the banned list as described in paragraph 78 above and therefore, the Circular Letter would solicit comments on both lists.
Status of the Proposed Draft List of Banned Previous Cargoes
81) The Committee agreed to advance the Proposed Draft List as contained in Appendix 3 of CL 2000/44-FO including Point (2) of the Notes to the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption at Step 5/8, with the omission of Steps 6 and 7 (see Appendix III).
