225. The Delegation of South Africa introduced the document and informed the Committee that at the request of the 32nd Session of the Committee it was agreed to seek the relevant information from governments in order to consider the request of the Delegation of India to establish MRLs for spices. The Delegation pointed out that India, Mexico, Thailand and the USA submitted comments which indicated that:
226. The Committee had an extensive debate on how to proceed in this area. Due to the lack of GAPs and supervised trial data it would be not possible to fully apply the current MRL establishment procedures. It also appeared that in view of very small consumption of spices intake problems were not expected.
227. Several spice exporting and importing countries indicated that due to the lack of Codex MRLs there were problems in international trade.
228. The Delegation of Egypt informed the Committee that monitoring of residues had been carried out since 1995 and therefore residue data could be submitted. The Delegation suggested extending the scope of the discussion to aromatic plants and to establish MRLs for dry and fresh herbs. However, the Committee recalled that following the decision of the last session, priority should be given to spices.
229. The Delegation of India, while pointing out the complexity of the matter, proposed the elaboration of MRLs/EMRLs on the basis of monitoring data and indicated that monitoring data on residues of DDT, lindane and BHC could be submitted. This view was supported by several delegations. The Delegation of the Netherlands welcommed the collection of the monitoring data however suggested that in view of low intake of spices it might be unnecessary establish EMRLs unless it required to solve trade problems and indicated that the Netherlands did not establish EMRLs in order not to create trade problems.
230. The Delegation of Spain proposed to define groups of spices, to clarify intended uses of compounds as to whether it would be a field or postharvest treatment and suggested the extrapolation of data from one type of spice to another where possible.
231. The Delegation of Malaysia proposed that priority be given to establishment of EMRLs for DDT as several spice producing countries were facing residue problems of this insecticide.
232. The Representative of spice producing organization being part of the delegation of the Netherlands indicated that manufacturers were unlikely to support studies of residues or to provide data on the use of chemicals on those minor crops but it was nevertheless important that GAPs are developed as much as possible and offered its assistance for further work in this area.
233. The Committee noted concerns that some compounds should not be used on spices but recognized that the establishment of EMRLs might be necessary due to environmental contamination. However, due to the lack of data the Committee considered that referral to JMPR was premature.
234. The Committee agreed that the Delegation of South Africa with assistance of Egypt, India, Indonesia, and the spice trader associations would prepare a concise position paper to identify the more important spice/pesticide combinations, the availability of GAP information and residue data (field trial and monitoring data) together with information on trade problems. It was also agreed that the paper should consider policy guidance on further steps in the establishment of MRLs/EMRL for spices.
