General Considerations
Draft Standards and Related Texts at Step 8 or at Step 5 of the Accelerated Procedure, or at Steps 5/8 of the Normal Procedure
Texts Proposed for Revocation
99. The Commission considered a number of draft standards and related texts that had been developed by its subsidiary bodies. It considered standards and related texts submitted at Step 8 of the Uniform Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts and texts submitted at Step 5 of the Accelerated Procedure. It also considered texts submitted at Step 5 where, in certain cases, the subsidiary body had recommended the omission of Steps 6 and 7. The results of the Commission's consideration of these standards and related texts are presented in tabular form in Appendix IV of the present report. The following paragraphs of this report provide additional information concerning the discussions that took place on certain items or contain additional decisions taken by the Commission in regard to the adoption of certain texts.
Food Hygiene
Sugars and Honey
Milk and Milk Products
Food Additives and Contaminants
Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods
Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems
Pesticide Residues
Food Labelling
Fish and Fishery Products
Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses
Processed Fruits and Vegetables
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
Natural Mineral Water and Related Products
Cocoa Products and Chocolate
Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems
Street Foods
Soups and Broths
Vegetable Proteins
Methods of Analysis and Sampling
Fats and Oils
Draft Code of Practice for Bottled/Packaged Drinking Waters (Other Than Natural Mineral Waters)[24]
100. The Commission adopted the Draft Code at Step 8.
Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for the Transport of Food in Bulk and Semi-Packaged Food[25]
101. The Commission amended the last sentence of the Introduction to clarify that the Code was not applicable to, and did not take precedence over, other Codex commodity-specific codes already in existence for such commodities in bulk, for example the Recommended International Code of Practice For the Storage and Transport of Edible Oils and Fats in Bulk (CAC/RCP 36-1987 Rev.1-1999). The Commission also deleted a reference regarding the food transported directly from the field to the market (Section 2.1) and requested the Committee on Food Hygiene to consider the implications of this provision in relation to foods moving into international trade with the view to amending the Code if necessary. The Commission adopted the Draft Code at Step 8 as amended.
Draft Revised Standard for Honey[26]
102. The Commission amended the revised draft standard by extending the Scope, Description and Labelling provisions of the Standard to honey produced by all honey-producing bees, not only Apis mellifera. It requested the Committee to continue to work on the standard to allow the identification of honey according to the species of bee as well as floral, topographical origins and the country of origin, including reference to the moisture content of these honeys. The Commission adopted the Draft Revised Standard at Step 8 with these amendments. The Delegations of Greece, Italy and Spain expressed their reservations regarding the broadening of the Scope to cover all species of honey-producing bees.
Proposed Draft Amendment for the Standard on Sugars[27]
103. The Commission noted that the reference to ICUMSA GS 2/3-5 for the determination of invert sugar in soft sugars and brown sugar was not correct and should be substituted by ICUMSA GS 1/3/7-3. It also decided to delete the methods for determination of arsenic and lead in the sugar standard, as there were no provisions for those contaminants.
104. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Amendments at Steps 5 and 8 with the omission of Steps 6 and 7 as proposed. The Commission requested the Committee on Sugars to examine whether the change in method of analysis for determination of colour may require a change in the specification of colour especially in plantation or mill white sugar.
105. The Delegation of India supported by several delegations was of the view that the revision of colour specifications was not necessary. The Delegation of Mexico requested that it be noted that there had been a lack of consideration of its written comments by the Committee.
Draft Group Standard for Unripened Cheese Including Fresh Cheese[28]
106. The Commission noted the concern on use of the food additive, pimaricin, in the standard. The representative of the JECFA clarified that at its recent meeting, the evaluation of this additive had resulted in the same recommendations.
107. The Commission adopted the Draft Group Standard with pimaricin temporarily endorsed for surface/rind treatments only. The delegations of Switzerland, Spain, Germany and Egypt expressed their reservation on retaining pimaricin in the standard.
Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Edible Casein Products[29]
108. The Commission deleted the draft maximum level of Lead in accordance with its previous decisions concerning levels of Lead in milk and milk products (see para. 120-121 below) and adopted the Draft Revised Standard at Steps 5 and 8.
Proposed Draft Amendment to the Codex General Standard for Cheese (Description)[30]
109. The Commission adopted the Draft Amendment at Steps 5 and 8 and was informed that the issue of the minimum protein level would be discussed further at the next session of the Committee on Milk and Milk Products.
Proposed Draft Amendment to the Codex Group Standard for Cheeses in Brine (Sampling)[31]
110. The Commission adopted the Draft Revised Standard at Steps 5 and 8.
Codex General Standard for Food Additives: Draft Guidelines for the Development of Maximum Levels for the Use of Additives with Numerical Acceptable Daily Intakes (Annex A)[32]
111. The Commission adopted the text as proposed.
Codex General Standard for Food Additives: Proposed Draft and Draft Food Additive Provisions in Table 1[33]
112. In view of the recommendation of the 57th the JECFA meeting to establish a temporary ADI for Quillaia Extract, the Commission returned the provisions for the use of this additive to Step 7 for further consideration by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants. The use of Stannous Chloride in category 14.1.2.1 (Canned or bottled (pasteurized) fruit juice) was returned to Step 7 as the additive was not currently used in the manufacture of fruit juices.
113. The Commission adopted the provisions for the use of EDTAs in category 14.2 (alcoholic beverages, including alcohol-free and low-alcoholic counterparts). It noted the views of those countries that had recommended the deletion of these provisions in order to align the standard with the standards of the OIV wine, but noted that the use of EDTAs was based on a thorough safety evaluation and was used in other countries not members of the OIV. The Commission proposed that these provisions be discussed further by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants.
114. The Commission noted that the use of Pimaricin in Category 1.6 (Cheese) at a level of 40 mg/kg was based on the qualification that it was used for surface treatment only and was equivalent to 2 mg/dm2 surface application to a maximum depth of 5 mm. However, as the provisions for the use of Pimaricin in sliced, cut shredded and grated products in the Draft Group Standard for Unripened Cheese, including Fresh Cheese were only temporarily endorsed by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants pending reevaluation by the JECFA, the Commission agreed that the provision in the Codex General Standard for Food Additives should remain as temporarily endorsed.
115. The Commission adopted the other provisions as proposed at Step 8, with the omission of Steps 6 and 7 for some proposals as recommended by the Committee.
Draft Maximum Level for Patulin in Apple Juice and Apple Juice Ingredients in Other Beverages[34]
116. The delegation of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Community, noted that recent exposure assessments indicated that although the lifetime exposure to patulin is below the PMTDI, the exposure of children to patulin through the consumption of apple juice was in the range of, or even exceeded, the PMTDI for a considerable period during childhood. Because of this concern, the EC had initiated a study to evaluate the dietary intake of patulin. It was noted that the results of the study were expected to become available in the beginning of 2002 and therefore, it was suggested that adoption of the draft maximum level be delayed. Many other delegations supported this view and also noted that the reduction of patulin in apple juice was easily achievable through Good Manufacturing Practice by the removal or trimming of affected apples.
117. Many other delegations supported the adoption of the draft maximum level as the JECFA had determined that the level was protective of both adults and children, and in the interest of setting limits for a contaminant which was a serious health concern. These delegations supported the recommendation of the Chairperson of the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants that, after adoption, the level should be reviewed further by the JECFA and the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants in light of new data that would be made available and reconsidered at the next session of the Commission. It was also noted that the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants was in the process of elaborating a Code of Practice for the prevention of contamination by patulin that would help to address the reduction of contamination in apple juice through preventative measures at the production level.
118. As a consensus could not be reached, the Commission returned the draft maximum level to Step 6 for further consideration by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants. The delegations of Mexico and the United States objected to this decision, observing that the proposed level was responsive to public health needs.
Draft Maximum Levels for Lead[35]
119. Several delegations were of the opinion that the reduction of the level for Lead in cocoa butter from 0.5 mg/kg to 0.1 mg/kg was not adequately justified and would create barriers to trade without any significant reduction of health risk. Other delegations were of the opinion that the lower levels were easily achievable with the application of good agricultural practices. As there was no consensus, the Commission adopted the level of 0.1 mg/kg for lead in vegetable oils, excluding cocoa butter, with the understanding that the level did not apply to lead in cocoa butter. The Commission agreed that there was a need for getting reliable scientific data from Governments and other interested organizations in order to justify any level lower than 0.5 mg/kg in cocoa butter. The Delegation of Singapore stated that the burden of proof to justify a change in an existing standard laid with the parties requesting the change.
120. The Commission adopted the remaining levels for Lead at Step 8 as proposed by the Committee.
121. Several delegations felt that the level of 0.02 mg/kg for Lead in milk was too low, and that the footnote indicating "that for dairy products, an appropriate concentration factor should apply" did not support the elaboration of a level of 0.1 mg/kg for milk fat. Other delegations felt that lower levels were necessary to protect sensitive individuals, and especially children, from a contaminant with severe public health implications. The Commission adopted the levels for lead in milk (0.02 mg/kg) and milk fat (0.1 mg/kg) as proposed, and requested the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants to re-evaluate the levels.
122. The Delegation of India expressed its reservation at the fixing of these levels on the grounds that: (a) there was no JECFA evaluation; and (b) there was no IDF standard which was claimed to be the basis on which the level had been recommended. Similarly the Delegation stated that the level of Lead adopted for fruits was more stringent than the level evaluated as safe by the JECFA, and that the level was not based on global data.
123. The Representative of the OIV requested that special consideration be given to levels of Lead in wines that had been stored for long periods of time.
124. The Commission agreed that the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants should develop a Code of Practice on the prevention and reduction of lead contamination in food and recommended that the FAO guidelines on lead-soldered cans could be useful in this regard.[36]
125. The Commission noted the request of Thailand to the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants for the Committee to give priority to the development of principles for exposure assessment of contaminants and toxins so as to provide advice to the JECFA.
Draft Amendments to the Codex International Numbering System for Food Additives[37]
126. The Commission adopted the changes as proposed.
Draft Maximum Level for Aflatoxin M1 in Milk[38]
127. The delegation of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Community, objected to the level of 0.5 mg/kg because in the case of genotoxic carcinogens, exposure at any level might pose a health risk to consumers, in particular children, and that the level should therefore be as low as reasonably achievable. Other delegations supported the level of 0.5 mg/kg as proposed, especially in view of the determination of the JECFA that with worst-case assumptions, the additional risks for liver cancer predicted with the use of the proposed maximum levels of aflatoxin M1 of 0.05 and 0.5 mg/kg were very small.[39] The Delegation of Bolivia stated that if the lower level would be fixed, it would create unjustified barriers to trade without affecting the risks to consumers' health.
128. The Commission could not reach a consensus on this issue.
129. In view of the importance of establishing a level for the health protection of consumers, and in consideration that the higher level provided an adequate level of protection as determined by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants, the Commission adopted the maximum level of 0.5 mg/kg in milk. It was agreed that data supporting the lower level, if and when available, could be examined by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants at a future meeting if necessary. The member states of the EU, as well as the delegations of Cyprus, Estonia, Ghana, Hungary, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Swaziland and Switzerland expressed their reservations on this decision. The Representative of Consumers International also expressed the concern of that organization at the decision taken.
Draft Code of Practice for Source Directed Measures to Reduce Contamination of Food With Chemicals[40]
130. The Commission adopted the Draft Code with an amendment to paragraph 3 of the Introduction concerning the role of the Commission in notifying other international organizations of potential or actual food contamination problems.
131. The delegations of Malaysia, Thailand, Peru and The Philippines objected to the statement at the end of paragraph 4 that "When fishing waters or agricultural land become heavily polluted due to local emissions, it may to necessary to blacklist the areas concerned ....". However, the Commission noted that this recommendation was under the control of local or national authorities only, and retained the sentence as proposed.
Draft Maximum Level for Lead in Fruit Juices[41]
132. The Commission adopted the draft maximum level as proposed.
Draft Guideline Level for Cadmium in Cereals, Pulses and Legumes[42]
133. The Commission adopted the level proposed as a maximum level.
Draft Revision of the Codex Standard for Food Grade Salt: Packaging, Transportation and Storage[43]
134. The Commission adopted the draft revision as proposed.
Proposed Draft Amendments to the Codex General Standard for Food Additives: Annex to Table 3 (Food Categories or Individual Food Items Excluded from the General Conditions of Table 3)[44]
135. The Commission noted that the Annex to Table 3 was already contained in Volume 1A of the Codex Alimentarius (General Requirements), and that the 33rd Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants had only forwarded amendments to the existing Annex. However, in considering the proposed amendments, it noted that development of the Annex to Table 3 and that of the relevant provisions of Tables 1 and 2 should be coordinated and simultaneous. It also noted that food categories 6.4.1 (Fresh pastas and noodles and like products) and 6.4.2 (Pre-cooked or dried pastas and noodles and like products (only dried products) and other food categories were being further considered by the CCFAC. The Commission adopted all proposed revisions to the Annex to Table 3 at Step 5 only.
136. The Commission recalled that the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants should actively continue the work begun at its 33rd Session (March, 2001) on the linkages between the General Standard for Food Additives and the Codex Commodity standards including the adaptation of the food categorization system in the General Standard.
Proposed Draft Codex Advisory Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives[45]
137. The Commission adopted the proposed draft Codex Advisory Specifications at Steps 5 and 8 with the omission of Steps 6 and 7.
Proposed Draft Revised Sampling Plan for Peanuts Intended for Further Processing[46]
138. The Commission adopted the proposed draft revised Sampling Plan as proposed, with the understanding that paragraph 1 of the Introduction would be revised to indicate that the maximum level was 15 mg/kg for total aflatoxins.
Proposed Draft Revisions to the Codex International Numbering System for Food Additives[47]
139. The Commission adopted the draft revisions to the Codex International Numbering System as proposed at Step 5 of the Accelerated Procedure.
Codex General Standard for Food Additives: Proposed Draft Amendments to Table 3 (Additives with an Acceptable Daily Intake of "Not Specified")[48]
140. The Commission adopted the proposed draft Amendments as proposed at Step 5 of the Accelerated Procedure.
Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Veterinary Drugs[49]
141. The Commission adopted the draft maximum residue limits for danofloxacin, gentamicin, imidiocarb and sarafloxacin as proposed. In response to concerns expressed concerning the approval and use of danofloxacin and sarofloxacin with respect to antimicrobial resistance, the Commission was informed that the general issue of antimicrobial resistance and the use of antimicrobials in animal production was currently under consideration in the Committee.
Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits and Proposed Draft Revised Maximum Residue Limits for Veterinary Drugs[50]
142. The Commission adopted the proposed draft and proposed draft revised maximum residue limits at Steps 5 and 8 with the omission of Steps 6 and 7.
Draft Guidelines for Generic Official Certificate Formats and the Production and Issuance of Certificates[51]
143. The Committee adopted the draft Guidelines as proposed.
Draft and Draft Revised Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides[52]
144. The Commission adopted the Draft and Draft Revised MRLs at Step 8 noting the reservations of the Delegations of Germany and the United States and the concerns of the Observer from Consumers International on the MRLs for ethephon in view of concerns regarding the acute reference dose, particularly in the case of children.
Extraneous Maximum Residue Limit for DDT
145. The Commission was unable to reach a consensus on proposals to establish the Extraneous Maximum Residue Limit (EMRL) for DDT for meat at either 3 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg as proposed by the Committee on Pesticide Residues. A majority of the Members of the Commission who expressed an opinion favoured a lower EMRL of 1 mg/kg. However, since such a limit represented a significant amendment[53] of the proposals of the Committee on Pesticide Residues, the Commission decided to retain the current temporary EMRL of 5 mg/kg and agreed that the proposal to lower the EMRL to 1 mg/kg should be referred to the Committee for further consideration.
Proposed Draft and Proposed Draft Residue Limits for Pesticides[54]
146. The Commission adopted the MRL for ethephon for dried grapes at Step 5 only. It amended the MRL for citrus fruit to 0.5 mg/kg for pyroxyfen (200) following the decision of the Committee and adopted the remaining Draft and Draft Revised MRLs at Steps 5 and 8 with the omission of Steps 6 and 7.
Proposed Draft Amendments to the Codex Classification of Foods and Animal Feeds[55]
147. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Amendments at Step 5 of the Accelerated Procedure as presented.
Other matters
148. The Commission noted the information regarding the document Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine Tobacco Control Activities of the World Heath Organization, Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents which had been commissioned by the Director-General of WHO. The report indicated that the Tobacco Industry, through a WHO Temporary Advisor who was receiving fees from the tobacco industry at that time, had attempted to influence unduly the conclusions of the 1993 JMPR on the toxicological evaluations of ethylenbisdithiocarbamates (EBDCs) and ethylenthiourea (ETU). The Commission took note of the thorough review of this case by the 2000 JMPR and the 33rd Session of the Committee on Pesticide Residues (April 2001). The 2000 JMPR had concluded that the 1993 evaluations were valid. The 33rd Session of the Committee was informed that an independent review conducted since also confirmed the conclusion of the 1993 JMPR and had decided that no further action was required concerning the Codex Maximum Residue Limits for dithiocarbamates, adopted by the Commission at its 23rd Session (July 1999); however new data on these substances would be evaluated as they became available.
149. The Commission also noted that the 2000 JMPR had recommended a range of enhanced transparency measures on which WHO was taking action and that the Organization had already introduced revised procedures for declaration of interest.
Draft Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods: 1)Livestock and Livestock Products and 2) Beekeeping and Additives
150. The Commission adopted the Draft Guidelines as proposed by the Committee.
151. The Delegation of China pointed out that the section on veterinary drugs for livestock required further clarification as to the substances which were actually allowed in an organic production system and the definition of relevant limits. The Commission noted that this could be addressed as part of the regular review of the Guidelines.
Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods: Section 4.2.2 Labelling of Foods obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering (Declaration of Allergens)
152. The Commission adopted the amendment as proposed by the Committee.
Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods/Draft Recommendations for the Labelling of Foods obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering: Definitions
153. The Chairperson of the Committee recalled that there had been extensive debate on the use of the terms "modern biotechnology" and "genetically modified/engineered" and the Committee had agreed to include both definitions as a compromise, with the understanding that this did not prejudge the decision which might be taken on labelling requirements. Several delegations including that of Japan supported the recommendations of the Committee.
154. Some delegations and observers expressed the view that the reference to "modern biotechnology" should be deleted as it was not accepted by consumers. Several delegations and the Observer from Consumers International indicated that although they did not support its use for labelling purposes, they could accept its inclusion in the definitions following the compromise reached in the Committee.
155. The Observer from the Biotechnology Industry Association proposed to delete the definition of "genetically modified/engineered" which was not scientifically based and to retain only the definition of "modern biotechnology" as it was consistent with the Cartagena Protocol and the definitions under consideration by the ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology.
156. Some delegations pointed out that the definitions should not be advanced further as the recommendations concerning labelling were still at Step 3 and a number of controversial issues remained to be solved. It was also noted that the definition of genetically modified foods currently used in the Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods was different.
157. The Commission agreed to return the Draft Amendment to Step 6 for further comments and consideration by the Committee on Food Labelling.
Proposed Draft Amendment to the Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods (Table 1:Substances Used in Soil Fertilizing and Conditioning)
158. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Amendment at Step 5 of the Accelerated Procedure.
Draft Standard for Crackers from Marine and Freshwater Fish, Crustacean and Molluscan Shellfish
159. The Delegation of Spain expressed the view that fish crackers should not be presented as generic products and that the species of fish used should be mentioned in the name of the food and the list of ingredients, in order to provide adequate information to consumers. The Chairperson of the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products recalled that the Committee had agreed that the crackers covered by the standard were not single ingredient products, as several fish species could be used in their preparation, the name "fish cracker" corresponded to their composition and did not mislead the consumer.
160. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard as proposed by the Committee.
Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Sardine and Sardine Type Products
161. The Delegation of Norway as the Member responsible for appointing the Chairperson of the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, recalled that the 21st Session of the Commission had requested that the Accelerated Procedure should generally be used for the inclusion of additional species, and especially to consider Clupea bentincki, as proposed by Chile. In application of its specific procedure, the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products had designated three independent laboratories and interested countries had been invited to provide samples. In view of the results, the Committee had agreed to propose the inclusion of this species in the Standard. As no consensus had been reached in the 23rd Session of the Commission, the Committee had considered this question again at its 24th Session and confirmed its earlier conclusion, considering that there were no new factors. The Commission also noted that the Committee had initiated a review of its current procedure.
162. The Delegation of Chile stressed that the procedure for the inclusion of species had been followed and that its results should be recognized; no new element had been brought forward in the last session of the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products and there was no justification for further delaying the adoption of the amendment until a new procedure was developed. The Delegation pointed out that Clupea bentincki was generally recognized as a sardine type product, including in the FAO classification and that objections raised to its inclusion were not based on scientific data and created unjustified barriers to trade related to economic interests; all this provided credibility for the objectives of the Commission and its standards-setting procedures.
163. The Delegation of Morocco expressed its objection to the amendment as the procedure had not been followed adequately since no samples from Morocco had been examined, and as only Sardina pilchardus should be presented as sardine on the market. The name of products should not be determined by their presentation, as was the case for most "sardine type" species included in the standard, and the Committee should review the current procedure before including any new species. The Delegation pointed out that unfair competition from such products seriously affected the economic interest of Morocco as an exporting country and it could not accept the inclusion of an additional species in the Standard.
164. Due to lack of time the Commission adjourned the debate on this question and no conclusion was reached.
Guidelines for the Use of Nutrition Claims: Draft Table of Conditions for Nutrient Content (Part B)[58]
165. The Commission adopted the Draft Table at Step 8 as presented.
Draft Revised Codex Standard for Applesauc[60]
166. The Commission adopted the Draft Revised Codex Standard for Applesauce at Step 8 as amended by the 29th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling[61]. The Commission noted that the correct Spanish translation of applesauce was "puré de manzana" and therefore, it agreed to refer to "puree (puré)" throughout the Spanish text.
Draft Codex Standard for Canned Pears[62]
167. The Commission adopted the Draft Codex Standard for Canned Pears at Step 8 as amended by the 29th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling[63]. A number of delegations[64] expressed their concern as regards the use of artificial colours in this product since they were not allowed in their national legislation. It was pointed out that the addition of colours could pose a health risk and had the potential to deceive consumers since their use could mask poor quality of the product.
168. The Commission noted that colours were only allowed to be used in special holiday packs for canned pears intended for selling on special festivity occasions and that the labelling provisions of the Standard took adequately care of this particular case. Moreover, these additives had been evaluated as being safe for use in foods by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and was endorsed by the 33rd Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants[65]. It was also noted that an international standard should be flexible enough to reflect manufacturing practices in the various regions of the world.
Draft Codex Standard for Kimchi[66]
169. The Commission adopted the Draft Codex Standard for Kimchi at Step 8 as proposed.
Draft Codex Standard for Tannia[68]
Draft Revised Codex Standard for Papaya[69]
Draft Codex Standard for Cape Gooseberry[70]
170. The Commission adopted the Draft Codex Standards for Tannia, Papaya and Cape Gooseberry at Step 8 as proposed.
Draft Codex Standard for Asparagus[71]
171. The Commission adopted the Draft Codex Standard for Asparagus at Step 8 with the following amendments:
Draft Minimum Juice Content for the Codex Standard for Limes[72]
172. The Commission adopted the Draft Minimum Juice Content for the Draft Codex Standard for Limes at Step 8 as proposed.
Amendment to the Codex Standard for Natural Mineral Waters (CODEX STAN 108-1981, Rev. 1 1997)-Health Related Limits for Certain Substances[73]
173. The Delegation of China informed the Commission that many natural mineral waters present in several regions of China were naturally rich in Selenium in a range of concentrations from 0.01 mg/l to 0.05 mg/l and that Selenium was an essential nutrient to human life, whose upper level is 0.4 mg/l per day for an adult. While recognizing the WHO Guidelines on Drinking Water on Health Related Limits, the Delegation of China expressed its reservation on the proposed level of Selenium of 0.01 mg/l proposed in the Draft Standard.
174. Noting the concern expressed by China, the Commission adopted the amendment at Step 8.
Proposed Draft General Standard for Bottled/Packaged Drinking Waters (Other than Natural Mineral Waters)[74]
175. The Delegation of India expressed concern that there was a lack of clarity on technical matters regarding several sections on definitions, permissible treatments, and additions of minerals to Bottled/Packaged Drinking Waters. It also questioned the coherence of the draft standard with definitions in the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Bottled/Packaged Waters (Other Than Natural Mineral Waters).
176. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard at Step 5 and 8 by omitting Step 6 and 7. The Delegation of India expressed its reservation on this decision.
Draft Revised Codex Standard for Cocoa Butter[75]
177. The Commission agreed to exclude the use of hexane as a processing aid in press cocoa butter as this was inconsistent with normal practice. Noting its earlier decision concerning the level of lead in Cocoa Butter (see paras. 119-120), the Commission adopted the Draft Standard at Step 8 as amended.
Draft Revised Codex Standard for Cocoa (Cacao) Mass (cocoa/chocolate liquor) and Cocoa Cake[76]
178. The Commission agreed to amend Section 3.2 fixing the Cocoa Shell and Germ content to "not more than 4.5% calculated on an alkali free basis" on the basis of comments presented by the Chairperson of the Committee. The Commission also amended Section 8.3 by aligning the method for the determination of lead to the method recommended in other Codex standards for cocoa products that is to say "According to AOAC 934.07".
179. For consistency with the decision taken on the level of lead in Cocoa butter (See paras. 119-120), the Commission agreed that there was a need for reliable scientific data from Governments and other interested organizations in order to justify any lower level than 2 mg/kg.
180. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard at Step 8 as amended.
Draft Revised Codex Standard for Cocoa Powders (Cocoas) and Dry Mixtures of Cocoa and Sugars[77]
181. The Observer of IOCCC underlined the need for clarification on levels of additives regarding the nature of final products. The Commission recalled that the Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate tried to establish a distinction between products that were intended for further use and those sold to the consumer directly. The Commission agreed to insert an additional mention to "final cocoa products" in enlarging provisions for the use of additives to all cases present in international food trade.
182. Consistency with the decision taken on the level of lead in Cocoa Butter (See paras. 119-120 above), the Commission agreed that there was also a need for getting reliable scientific data from Governments and other interested organizations in order to justify any lower level than 2 mg/kg in cocoa powders and dry mixtures of cocoa and sugars.
183. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard at Step 8 as amended.
Draft Guidelines for Generic Official Certificate Formats and the Production and Issuance of Certificates[78]
184. The Commission adopted the draft Guidelines as proposed.
Proposed Draft Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems[79]
185. The Commission noted that the intention of the Guidelines was to assist countries, and especially developing countries, in the application of provisions concerning equivalence in the WTO SPS Agreement, insofar as food import and export inspection and certifications systems were concerned. The Executive Committee had accorded high priority to this work. The Delegation of Argentina initiated the debate by expressing its reservations concerning the procedure followed to advance the Guideline as well as to the current content of the text, detailed corrections concerning which were contained in the comments provided in CAC/LIM-13. It stated that for these reasons, Argentina opposed the adoption of the Guidelines at Step 8. The representative of the WTO noted that one of the concerns raised by developing countries in the SPS Committee was the difficulties faced in having the equivalence of their exported products recognized in terms of health protection, and they have stressed the need for clear guidance in this area. It was noted that such guidance was urgently needed to expand developing country export markets.
186. Several delegations were of the view that more time was needed to scrutinize the document in detail through consultation with governments and other interested parties and therefore, suggested that the Guidelines be adopted at Step 5 only. It was also suggested that the document should be considered in parallel with the CCFICS Guidelines on the Judgement of Technical Regulations Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems. It was noted that further consideration was required in the Scope section as well as in the definition for the equivalence of sanitary measures. Discrepancies between the English and Spanish/French versions were also noted.
187. In view of the above concerns, the Commission adopted the Guidelines at Step 5 only so that they could be further considered by the CCFICS.
188. The Observer from Consumers International recommended that to facilitate consensus on the Guidelines, the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems should hold a workshop to agree on what types of information was to be reviewed towards the making of a judgement of equivalence.
Draft Revised (Regional) Code of Hygienic Practice for the Preparation and Sale of Street Foods[81]
189. The Commission adopted the Draft Revised Code of Hygienic Practice for the Preparation and Sale of Street Foods at Step 8 as proposed by the FAO/WHO Regional Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Draft Revised Codex Standard for Bouillons and Consommés[83]
190. The Commission adopted the Draft Revised Codex Standard for Bouillons and Consommés at Step 8 as proposed. The Delegation of Mexico expressed its reservation in stating that not all of its written comments had been taken into account.
Draft Codex Standard for Wheat Protein products Including Wheat Gluten[84]
191. The Delegation of Canada recalled that, as initially proposed by the Observer from the European Starch Industry (AAC) and as approved by the Commission, the standard had been revised by correspondence on the basis of the comments received.
192. The Commission discussed section 8.2 Instructions for Use which does not allow the use of wheat gluten for technological reasons for foods which are gluten-free by nature. Several delegations and the Observer from AAC pointed out that allergenicity and intolerance were adequately addressed by the provisions of the amended General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, but that such prohibition was not justified in a standard for a particular product. It was noted that the issues related to the presence of allergens could be further considered from a general perspective if required.
193. Several delegations and observers including the Observer from Association of European Coeliac Societies (AOECS) pointed out that labelling in such cases was not a satisfactory instrument and supported the inclusion of this provision in view of the limited availability of gluten-free foods for coeliacs, which would be further reduced by the use of gluten as coatings or processing aids. The Observer from the AOECS expressed concern at the use of wheat gluten and wheat protein products because this restricted the choice of gluten-free foods available to coeliacs. The Observer urgently requested that food gluten-free by nature be kept gluten-free.
194. The Commission agreed that wheat gluten and wheat protein products should not be used when it was not possible to inform the consumer of their presence through adequate labelling; however, this should not prevent the use of these products as ingredients in composite prepackaged foods when they could be declared in the labelling. The Commission agreed to transfer the third sentence of the Instructions for Use to the Scope with a footnote to the effect that "This does not preclude the use of these products as ingredients in composite prepackaged foods provided that they are properly labelled as ingredients".
195. The Commission noted the reservations of the Delegations of the United States and Uganda on this section and adopted the Standard at Step 8.
Harmonized IUPAC Guidelines for the Use of Recovery Information in Analytical Measurement
196. The Commission adopted the IUPAC guidelines by reference for the purposes of Codex.
General Codex Methods for the Detection of Irradiated Foods
197. The Delegation of Hungary recalled that the Committee had considered five methods proposed by the EC in relation to the provisions of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods concerning irradiated foods.
198. The Committee noted the written comments of the Chair of ICGFI expressing concern at the procedure followed for the endorsement of these methods, the lack of international validation and the potential barriers to trade that would result for developing countries. The Secretariat confirmed that under its Terms of Reference, the Committee could consider general methods of analysis without referring them to other Codex committees and recalled that the adoption of these methods in Codex had been supported by the Representative of FAO/IAEA in the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.
199. The Delegation of Brazil expressed its concern that the methods proposed would not be easily applicable in developing countries and might therefore create problems in trade. The Observer from the EC pointed out that the five CEN methods had been validated at the international level, as appeared from the comprehensive bibliography provided in CAC/LIM 7. The Commission also noted that the FAO/IAEA Joint Division on Nuclear Techniques in Agriculture had participated in the initial development of these methods.
200. The Commission adopted the five methods proposed as general Codex methods and encouraged the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling to give further consideration to validated methods that would be suitable for use in developing countries.
General Codex Methods for Contaminants
201. The Commission adopted the General Methods.
Proposed Draft Amendments to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils
202. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Amendments as proposed by the Committee.
Proposed Draft Amendments to the Code of Practice for the Transport of Edible Fats and Oils in Bulk (List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes and List of Immediate Previous Banned Cargoes)
203. The Delegation of the United States, supported by another delegation, expressed the view that the list of acceptable cargoes should not be adopted at Step 8 as it had not been developed on the basis of clearly defined criteria and supporting documentation. The Committee should therefore define criteria and procedures for the evaluation of the substances to be included as acceptable previous cargoes. The Commission also noted that a number of written comments proposing amendments to the List had been submitted.
204. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes at Step 5 only in order to allow for further comments at Step 6 and consideration of the issues raised.
205. As there was consensus on the Proposed Draft List of Banned Immediate Previous Cargoes, the Commission adopted it at Step 8 with the omission of Steps 6 and 7, as proposed by the Committee.
Residue Limits for Pesticides[87]
206. The Commission revoked obsolete MRLs as proposed.
Vinegar
207. The Commissioned revoked the European Regional Standard for Vinegar on the advice of the Regional Coordinating Committee for Europe.[88]
