Trade Vulnerabilities Resulting from the Lengthy Codex MRL Process
5. The Committee noted matters of interest arising from the 47th Session of the Executive Committee, the 15th Session of the Committee on General Principles (CCGP) and the 23rd Session of the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS).
6. The Committee noted that this matter had been considered by the FAO/WHO Codex Coordinating Committee for North America and South West Pacific (CCNASWP) and that the CCNASWP agreed to bring this issue to the attention of the CCPR.
7. The Delegation of the United States while introducing the issue indicated that according to current practice the time between nomination of a pesticide for consideration and the actual establishment of MRLs resulted in an existing window of trade vulnerability of agricultural commodities. The Delegation pointed out that a number of new pesticides were registered at the national level, as there was a need for safer and more efficient pesticides to address new challenges such as resistance and the introduction of exotic pests. However, in the current system, it would take several years before these pesticides could be evaluated by JMPR and before Codex MRLs were adopted. As a result, growers were faced with serious difficulties to export their products, and the absence of Codex MRLs at the international level for new compounds was likely to create significant barriers to trade. The Delegation proposed a number of options to address these difficulties, including a reorientation of the priorities for JMPR and the establishment of “interim” MRLs that could be used as a reference with the understanding that they would be revised within a limited timeframe.
8. Several delegations and the Observer of the EC recognized the need for further discussion on this important matter; and noted that their exporters shared similar concerns, however, there was no consensus regarding the proposed conclusions.
9. The Delegation of Japan expressed concern with some recommendations in the paper, as they were not consistent with Codex procedures and the status of Codex standards under WTO, and pointed out that the document considered trade aspects and that there should be a balanced consideration of health protection and trade aspects in elaborating MRLs. The Observer of CI called attention to the referral to CCPR from CCNASWP to give attention to newer pesticides and that the newer does not necessarily mean safer.
10. The Secretariat recalled that according to the Statements of Principles Relating to the Role of Food Safety Risk Assessment, health and safety aspects of Codex decisions and recommendations should be based on risk assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances. The establishment of MRLs for pesticides in the absence of such a risk assessment would not be consistent with the risk analysis principles applied throughout Codex and would significantly impair their relevance in international trade.
11. The Delegation of Spain supported by some other delegations, indicated that it was essential to establish Codex MRLs that would be accepted by all countries.
12. The Committee agreed to acknowledge the existence of the problem and requested the Delegation of the USA with the assistance of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chili, New Zealand, South Africa, EC and GCPF to prepare a paper for consideration by the next session of the Committee.
