71. The Secretariat presented a progress report on risk analysis in the work of Codex and recalled that the Action Plan adopted in 1997 requested the Committee on General Principles to develop working principles for inclusion in the Procedural Manual. However, the Committee had not been able to finalize the Working Principles and had asked the advice of the Commission on two issues: the Scope; and the action to be taken when scientific data were insufficient.
72. The Delegation of India recalled that its paper concerning uniform application of risk analysis in the elaboration of standards had been discussed in the Committee on General Principles and should be considered further in relation to the working principles by all Codex Committees.[21]
73. Several delegations proposed that the initial mandate of the Committee to develop risk analysis principles within Codex should be adhered to, as the extension of the Scope to cover guidance to governments had created some problems and prevented further progress, especially as regards the application of precaution. Several other delegations expressed the view that the mandate of the Commission was to provide advice to governments concerning risk analysis and that this advice was especially important for developing countries.
74. Reference was made to the Medium Term Plan 1998-2002 which stated that "Specific guidance on the application of risk analysis principles should be provided to Codex Committees on one hand and to Member Governments on the other: the former guidance to be included in the Procedural Manual, the latter in the Codex Alimentarius itself"[22].
75. The Commission confirmed its initial mandate to the Committee on General Principles to complete the principles for risk analysis within Codex as a high priority, with a view to their adoption in 2003. It also agreed that the Committee should develop guidance to governments subsequently or in parallel, as appropriate in view of its programme of work.
76. The Commission recommended that a Working Group should be organized by the host country (France) well in advance of the meeting, in order to facilitate discussion of a revised draft of the working principles at its 17th Session. The Delegation of Malaysia, supported by some other delegations expressed the view that the Working Group as well as the electronic consultation held prior to the Committee's 16th Session had not proved to be very effective. They also expressed some reservations concerning the holding of a working group meeting well in advance of the Committee's next session in view of the difficulty for developing countries to attend. The Delegation of France stated that it would wish to have assurances that there would be a possibility for such a working group to make progress.
77. The Commission discussed whether the Commission should elaborate standards or related texts when evidence of a risk to human health existed and scientific data were insufficient. In this regard, the Commission recalled that the FAO Conference on International Food Trade beyond 2000 (Melbourne, 1999) had called upon all parties to recognize that precaution has been and should remain an essential element of risk analysis in the formulation of national and international standards, and had agreed that the Codex Alimentarius Commission was the most appropriate forum to discuss this issue.
78. Several delegations expressed the view that the "precautionary principle" was not a principle of international law and should not be mentioned as such in the framework of Codex.
79. Referring to the recommendations of the Melbourne Conference, several delegations supported consideration of precaution in Codex in order to provide guidance and to governments and to prevent its mis-use as an unjustified barrier to trade.
80. In the view of several delegations, the Commission should not elaborate "standards and related texts" when data were insufficient, as Codex recommendations represented a reference at the international level and should be based on adequate scientific evidence. The situation was different at the national level, as governments had the possibility to take provisional measures to protect their population, as recognized under the SPS Agreement. Several other delegations indicated that precaution was already applied in Codex work, and that the Commission had adopted codes of practice and other recommendations when scientific data did not allow the establishment of a standard. In the view of these delegations, Codex should therefore make every effort to develop recommendations to protect consumers' health even when scientific evidence was insufficient.
81. In view of the above discussion, the Chairperson proposed that the Commission should take the following position:
"When there is evidence that a risk to human health exists but scientific data are insufficient or incomplete, the Commission should not proceed to elaborate a standard but should consider elaborating a related text, such as a code of practice, provided that such a text would be supported by the available scientific evidence."82. Many delegations supported this text as a compromise reflecting the need for a scientific basis while allowing for flexibility in the elaboration of "related texts". Other delegations expressed the view that this position would prevent Codex reacting efficiently in addressing risks to human health.
83. The Chairperson indicated that there was no consensus but a majority of member countries had expressed themselves in favour of this proposal. On this basis the Commission adopted the above position and noted the reservations of the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland.
84. The Delegation of the United Kingdom expressed its disagreement with the manner in which the decision was made as it was essential to take decisions by consensus at the level of the Commission.
85. The Commission also recommended that relevant Codex Committees should continue to develop and document the application of risk analysis in their work. It was agreed that the risk analysis policies developed by the Committees would be presented in a single document to the next session of the Commission.
