45. The Commission adopted the Draft Standards and Related Texts submitted by its subsidiary bodies at Step 8 (including those submitted at Step 5 with a recommendation to omit steps 6 and 7 and those submitted at Step 5 of the Accelerated Procedure) as presented in Appendix V to this report.
46. The following paragraphs provide additional information on the comments made and the decisions taken on certain items.
Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (Shrimps and Prawns; Cephalopods; Transport; Retail; and relevant Definitions)9
9 ALINORM 05/28/18, Appendix III
47. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Sections with the amendments proposed by the Committee on Food Hygiene to the Section on Shrimps and Prawns and the amendments proposed in the written comments of Brazil and the United Kingdom, supported by the European Community.
Proposed Draft Principles for Electronic Certification10
10 ALINORM 05/28/30, Appendix II
48. The Commission adopted the proposed draft Principles as proposed by the Committee and noted that the application of electronic certification was not mandatory and that the Principles aimed at providing guidance to those countries wishing to implement an electronic certification system. The Commission agreed to attach the Principles, as an Appendix, to the Codex Guidelines for Generic Official Certificate Formats and the production and Issuance of Certificates(CAC/GL 38-2001).
Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oil; Amendment of Sesameseed Oil11
11 ALINORM 05/28/17, Appendix III
49. The Commission noted that the proposal for amendments to the scope and fatty acid compositions in the Proposed Draft Amendment put forward by the Delegation of China at the current session had not previously been considered by the Committee on Fats and Oils. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Amendment to Sesameseed Oil as proposed by the Committee and agreed that the proposal from China would be considered at the next session of the Committee on Fats and Oils.
Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat12
50. The Commission adopted the proposed draft Code with the following amendments recommended by the Chairperson of the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene:
Para. 111, 5thdot point in the box to read:
“Microbiological performance objectives or performance criteria, process criteria or microbiological criteria that are regulatory requirements”.
Para. 118, 2nd dot point in the box to read:
“Monitoring achievement of performance objectives or performance criteria”.
Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements13
13 ALINORM 05/28/26, Appendix II
51. The Delegation of China suggested to include a specific definition for “provitamins” in the Guidelines and to add the following sentence after paragraph 3.1.1 “Member Countries could further decide categories of vitamins/provitamins and minerals that should be presented in food supplements depending on population's own dietary habits on the basis of provisions mentioned above”. The Commission however noted that there were no specific numerical limits included in the Guidelines and that the establishment of safe upper limits could be considered by governments, as appropriate, based on risk assessments.
52. One observer proposed to return the draft Guidelines to the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses because: neither the Scope nor the Preamble gave any indication of the purpose of the Guidelines, as required by the Procedural Manual; the draft Guidelines referred to a list of vitamins and minerals recognized by FAO/WHO that did not exist; the Guidelines did not apply to jurisdictions that regulated vitamins and minerals as drugs; and the changes requested by the Delegation of China were substantial, requiring the draft to be returned to the Committee as per the Procedural Manual.
53. Another observer pointed out that the work on the draft Guidelines had been carried out for more than ten years and it provided a solid basis for international regulation on this complex issue and encouraged the Commission to adopt the Guidelines as proposed.
54. After some discussion, the Commission agreed to insert the term “only” in the third sentence of the Scope to add clarity and adopted the Guidelines.
Draft and Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides (MRLs)14
14 ALINORM 05/28/24, Appendix II and Appendix III
55. The Commission noted the concerns expressed by the Delegation of the European Community for the draft MRL for deltamethrin (135) on leafy vegetables regarding the acute intake and for the draft MRLs for carbosulfan (145) on mandarin, oranges and potato, which should be subject to further evaluation by JMPR of the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority on variability factors. The Commission decided to return these MRLs to Step 6 for consideration by the Committee on Pesticide Residues and adopted all other draft MRLs as proposed by the Committee.
56. The Delegation of Cuba expressed its reservation for the draft MRL for carbofuran (096) in maize for safety reasons, and for the draft the MRLs for clorpyrifos (017) for potatoes, which was higher than the national standard.
Proposed Draft Interim MRLs Advanced for Adoption at Step 8 (I)15
15 ALINORM 05/28/24, Appendix V
57. To the question raised by one delegation regarding the status of the Interim Codex MRLs under WTO, the Representative of WTO stated that Interim MRLs elaborated by Codex could assist Members when provisionally taking measures in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. This matter however was subject to interpretation by WTO Committees and the dispute settlement body.
58. The Commission adopted the proposed draft Interim MRLs as proposed by the Committee, with the understanding that these MRLs would be valid for the period of four years. The Delegation of the European Community reserved its position on this decision.
Proposed Draft Code of Practice to Minimize and Contain Antimicrobial Resistance16
16 ALINORM 05/28/31, Appendix VIII
59. The Delegations of Tunisia and Cuba, proposed to delete from Section entitled “Distribution of veterinary antimicrobials drugs in veterinary medicine” references to “other suitably trained person authorised in accordance to national legislation”, arguing that only veterinarians should be responsible for the prescription of veterinary antimicrobial drugs. The Commission however acknowledged that in some countries the legislation allowed this responsibility to authorized persons other than veterinarians and adopted the proposed draft Code as proposed by the Committee. The Delegations of Tunisia and Cuba reserved their position on this decision.
Draft General Standard for Fruit Juices and Nectars17
17 ALINORM 05/28/39, Appendix II
60. In considering the Standard for adoption at Step 8, the Commission acknowledged that a few matters concerning the endorsement of certain provisions and technical comments arising from some members and observers needed to be addressed or clarified as follows:
Sections 3.4 and 9 - Methods of Analysis
61. The Commission approved the proposal of the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling18 to include an additional paragraph in Section 3.4 - Verification of Composition, Quality and Authenticity to allow for the endorsement of methods of analysis for composition, quality and authenticity listed in Section 919. These methods would not be part of the adopted Standard at this stage but would subsequently be included in the Standard by the Commission after the endorsement by the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.
18 ALINORM 05/28/9D-Add.1, para. 6
19 ALINORM 04/27/23, paras. 85 – 91 and Appendix VI
Section 4 - Food Additives
62. The Commission agreed to transfer the list of endorsed food additive provisions from the General Standard for Fruit Juices and Nectars to the General Standard for Food Additives and include the reference to the General Standards for Food Additives (GSFA) under the Section on Food Additives of the Standard, noting that there was full correspondence between the products covered by the Standard and the food category system of the GSFA.
63. The Commission also noted that this approach was consistent with the development of the GSFA although this might not be the case for other commodities which might require the list of additive provisions be retained in the commodity standard until the GSFA was completed in the future. The Commission therefore agreed to request CCFAC to examine the matter of how the endorsed list of additive provisions of commodity standards could systematically be incorporated into the GSFA.
Section 5 - Processing Aids
64. The Commission noted that the three processing aids that might entail allergenicity, i.e. isinglass and sodium/potassium caseinates, had been endorsed by CCFAC conditional to labelling for ingredient declaration. As processing aids were exempted from labelling declaration in the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, this additional labelling requirement needed to be further endorsed by the Committee on Food Labelling. The Commission noted that these three processing aids would be included in the adopted Standard after endorsement by CCFL.
65. The Delegation of Cuba noted that the there might be a need to further clarify the footnotes to sulphur dioxide vis-à-vis which fruit juices and nectars they applied to.
Section 6.1 - Pesticide Residues
66. The Observer from IFU stated that most of the maximum residue limits for pesticide residues developed by the Committee on Pesticide Residues applied to raw agricultural commodities. In addition, there were only a limited number of fruit juices for which maximum limits for certain pesticide residues had been established. The Observer also indicated that the matter of how maximum pesticide residue limits for raw agricultural commodities could apply to their corresponding processed commodities should further be clarified by CCPR. The Commission agreed to request CCPR to consider the opportunity for developing generally applicable guidance or principles in this matter.
Annex to the Standard - Footnotes to apple, pineapple and orange juices on Brix Levels
67. The Commission agreed to refer to “countries” instead of “geographical areas” and “origin” and amended the footnotes applying to apple, pineapple and orange juices accordingly. The Commission agreed to a proposal of the delegation of the United States to add the word “and” between “11.8–11.2” and “consistent” under the column “minimum Brix level for reconstituted fruit juices and reconstituted purees” for orange as it reflected the original decision of the Task Force.
Minimum Brix Level for Pineapple Juice
68. The Delegation of Thailand noted that Brix levels varied widely in the country and thus, it would be more appropriate to set a range of values ranking from 11.00 to 12.8 as in the case of orange juice. The Delegation, while agreeing to retain the current value of 12.8°Brix in the Standard, proposed to transfer into the Table of the Annex the footnote allowing countries consistently producing pineapple juices to apply a Brix level below 12.8 but not lower than 10. The Commission agreed to this proposal and made consequential amendments to the footnotes applying to apple and orange juices for consistency.
69. The Commission adopted the draft General Standard for Fruit Juices and Nectars with the amendments to Section 3.4 and the footnotes to apple, pineapple and orange juices while noting that the provisions pending further endorsement would be considered at the 29th Session of the Commission.
Draft Minimum Brix Level for Reconstituted Juice and Reconstituted Purée and Minimum Juice and/or Purée Content for Fruit Nectars (%v/v) - grape, guava, mandarine/tangerine, mango, passion fruit and tamarind (Indian date) juices/nectars20
20 ALINORM 05/28/39, Appendix III
Proposed draft Minimum Brix Level for Reconstituted Juice and Reconstituted Purée and Minimum Juice and/or Purée Content for Fruit Nectars (%v/v) - orange, lemon, lime and pineapple juices/nectars21
21 ALINORM 05/28/39, Appendix IV
70. The Commission adopted the draft and proposed draft Minimum Brix Levels for Reconstituted Juice and Reconstituted Purée and Minimum Juice and/or Purée Contents for Fruit Nectars with the amendment to the footnotes on pineapple and orange juices (see paras. 67 – 68), for their inclusion in the Annex of the General Standard for Fruit Juices and Nectars.
