18. The Commission recalled that, following the recommendations of the 26th Session of the Commission concerning the follow-up to the Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation, the Committee on General Principles had proposed several amendments to the Rules of Procedure. However, the 27thSession of the Commission had not been able to adopt these amendments due to the absence of a quorum.
19. The Commission determined that the quorum specified in Rule V.6 for the amendment of the Rules of Procedure was constituted7. In accordance with Rule VII.7 and XIV.1 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure and Rule XII.7 of the General Rules of FAO, the Commission proceeded to a roll-call vote for each amendment to the Rules of Procedure. The results of the vote are presented for each amendment as they were considered separately.
7 The number of Codex Member Countries [171] / 2 + 1 = 86.5; Rounded down to 86
Amendments to current Rules III and IV.1 concerning the enlargement of the Executive Committee and to current Rule XII on matters related to budget and expenses.
20. The Commission noted that there was general support for the amendments to current Rule III. Officers, including new a Rule IV. Coordinators and current Rule IV.1, allowing the participation of the Coordinators as Members in the Executive Committee and to current Rule XII. Budget and Expenses, and proceeded to a roll call vote with the following results.
| Votes in favour: | Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, DPR Korea, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, United States of America, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zambia, Zimbabwe |
| Votes against: | None |
| Abstaining: | None |
| Tally: | 92 votes cast, 92 in favour, 0 against, 0 abstentions (majority required 61) |
| Result: | The amendment was adopted |
Amendments to current Rule IV.2 concerning the enlargement of the Executive Committee and the functions of the Executive Committee and consequential amendments to current Rule X.
21. The Delegation of India, referring to its written comments (LIM 16) expressed the view that the functions and responsibilities of the Executive Committee in the proposed Rule V (current Rule IV.2) went beyond the recommendations made by the 26th Session of the Commission as a follow up to the FAO /WHO Evaluation, that they could not be managed by the Executive Committee itself, and would require a delegation of its responsibilities to various sub-committees, which might result in decreased transparency, inclusiveness and efficiency. The Delegation therefore proposed to delete from Rule V.2 the responsibilities relating to (i) General orientation and (ii) Study of special problems; and that the role of the Executive Committee in the management of the Commission's programme of standards development should be limited to the critical review of new work against criteria adopted by the Commission for the establishment of work priorities.
22. This proposal was supported by the Delegation of Malaysia and several other delegations who pointed out that it would clarify the functions of the Executive Committee. Several delegations expressed their concern with the establishment of sub-committees as this would create an additional burden on the Executive Committee and might limit its efficiency and transparency. It was also proposed to make it clear that sub-committees would be established only on a temporary basis.
23. Several other delegations supported the adoption of the amendments as proposed by the Committee on General Principles as they resulted from extensive discussion and would strengthen and clarify the role of the Executive Committee. In this regard, the Commission noted that the Committee of General Principles had agreed to consider at its next session a discussion paper to be prepared by India on the Rules of Procedure and the Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts, as well as the concept of consensus.
24. After some further discussion, the Commission agreed to proceed to a roll call vote on the proposal to amend Rule V.2, as submitted by the Committee on General Principles, and the consequential amendments to Rule X, with the following results.
| Votes in favour: | Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Lithuania, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, United States of America, Vietnam, Zambia |
| Votes against: | Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Africa, Thailand |
| Abstaining: | Iran, Singapore, Vanuatu, Venezuela |
| Tally: | 87 votes cast, 78 in favour, 9 against, 4 abstentions (majority required 59) |
| Result: | The amendment was adopted |
25. The Delegation of Zimbabwe later expressed its support in favour of the amendment.
Amendment to current Rule VIII.5 Observers
26. The Commission recalled that following the request of the 26th Session of the Commission, the 20thSession of the Committee on General Principles had considered an amendment to Rule VIII referring to the advice of the Executive Committee on the participation of NGOs in the work of the Commission. This amendment had also been reviewed by the 76th Session of the FAO Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters. The Commission supported the amendment and proceeded to a roll call vote with the following results.
| Votes in favour: | Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, DPR Korea, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, United States of America, Vietnam, Zambia, Zimbabwe |
| Votes against: | None |
| Abstaining: | Vanuatu, Venezuela |
| Tally: | 93 votes cast, 93 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions (majority required 63) |
| Result: | The amendment was adopted |
Amendment to current Rule V. Sessions on the right to address the Chair
27. The Commission supported this amendment and proceeded to a roll call vote with the following results.
| Votes in favour: | Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, DPR Korea, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, United States of America, Vietnam, Zambia, Zimbabwe |
| Votes against: | None |
| Abstaining: | Senegal, Vanuatu, Venezuela |
| Tally: | 94 votes cast, 94 in favour, 0 against, 3 abstentions (majority required 48) |
| Result: | The amendment was adopted |
28. The Commission noted that the amendments to the Rules of Procedure would enter into force only after their approval by the Directors-General of FAO and WHO (Rule XIV.1). The amendments to the Rules as adopted by the Commission are presented in Appendix II to the present report.
29. The Commission determined that the quorum specified in Rule V.6 for the amendment of the Statutes was constituted.
30. The Commission agreed, by consensus, to propose the deletion of the reference to the Acceptance Procedure in Article 1 (d) and (e) of the Statutes of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and to recommend the adoption of this amendment by the FAO Conference and the World Health Assembly.
31. The Commission noted that the amendments to the Statutes would enter into force only after their approval by the FAO Conference and the World Health Assembly. The amendments proposed are presented in Appendix III to the present report.
Amendments to the Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related texts, the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius, the Guidelines for the Acceptance Procedure for Codex Standards, and the Terms of Reference of Subsidiary Bodies
32. The Delegation of Australia, while supporting the abolition of the acceptance procedure, expressed the view that paragraph 4 of the Guidelines for the Acceptance Procedure described important principles of the Codex Alimentarius and provided guidance to member countries on how to implement or give regard to Codex standards in developing national regulations. The Delegation therefore proposed to retain the paragraph, with the deletion of the sentence referring to acceptance, as a new paragraph in the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius after paragraph 3 Nature of Codex Standards. This position was supported by several delegations and one observer.
33. The Delegation of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Community present at the session, expressed the view that this paragraph related to a procedure being abolished; it implied that Codex should not be involved with human health issues, which was not consistent with the emphasis put on Codex activities in the field of food safety and nutrition; and it assumed that Codex would not be involved in import issues, which was not consistent with the mandate of the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems. The Delegation therefore proposed to delete the entire paragraph as initially proposed by the Committee on General Principles.
34. After some discussion, the Commission agreed to delete all sections related to acceptance and to request the Committee on General Principles to review the General Principles of Codex to consider how the principles reflected in paragraph 4 could be integrated into the General Principles of Codex, taking into account the written comments made by Australia and other members.
35. The Delegation of Chile, supported by other delegations, expressed the view that the use of Codex standards should be monitored in order to provide useful information on how Codex standards were adopted or taken into account at the national level, as an alternative to the acceptance procedure. It was also proposed that the Secretariat should work with the WTO Secretariat to consider how to monitor information on the use of Codex standards.
36. The Commission adopted the amendments proposed by the Committee on General Principles concerning the abolition of the Acceptance Procedure, with an additional amendment to paragraph h) of the terms of reference of Coordinating Committees, as proposed in the written comments of the European Community, replacing the reference to “member countries” with “members”.
Draft Risk Analysis Principles Applied by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants
37. The Commission agreed with the proposal of the Delegation of Malaysia, supported by several delegations, to add the words “as approved by the Commission” at the end of the second sentence of paragraph 1 a) of the Scope and adopted the Draft Risk Analysis Principles with this amendment.
Draft CCFAC Policy for Exposure Assessment for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods and Foods Groups
38. The Commission noted the position of the European Community, while not opposing the inclusion of paragraph 8 in the Draft CCFAC Policy, that only in certain cases do such comparative exposure assessments of proposed maximum levels provide useful information enabling CCFAC to perform a consistent policy on the prevention and reduction of the contamination of the food chain. The Commission adopted the Draft CCFAC Policy as proposed.
39. The Delegation of the United States, while not opposing the adoption of the revised Criteria, pointed out that the establishment of a clear and concise set of criteria and their strict application were critical to the management of Codex work. The Delegation expressed the view that the review of the Codex committee structure and mandates might lead to significant changes in the subsidiary bodies and working priorities and therefore the revision of the Criteria should be suspended until the review had been completed. This position was supported by the delegation of Japan, who reserved its position on the adoption of the revised criteria at this stage, proposing that consideration of the matter be pursued in the Committee on General Principles.
40. The Commission adopted the Draft Revised Criteria as proposed and noted that the Criteria could be further reviewed later if required in the light of the review of Codex Committee structure and mandates.
41. The Commission adopted both Draft Guidelines as proposed.
42. The Commission adopted the Draft Revised Principles as proposed and noted that they would enter into force when the revised Rule VIII. entered into force.
43. The Commission adopted the Guidelines with the following editorial amendments proposed by some delegations for clarification purposes: in paragraph 3, referring to “international” intergovernmental body or organization; and in paragraphs 5 and 6 and the preceding sub-title, referring to “cooperating international intergovernmental organization”
44. The amendments to the Procedural Manual as adopted by the Commission are presented in Appendix IV to the present report.
