71. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Standards and Related Texts at Step 5 submitted by its subsidiary bodies at Step 5 as presented in Appendix VI to this report and advanced them to Step 6. The Commission noted that technical comments raised during the session would be referred to the relevant Committees for their consideration. The Commission encouraged members and observers that have submitted comments in writing or orally at the session to submit these comments at Step 6 of the Procedure.
72. The following paragraphs provide additional information on the comments made and the decisions taken on certain items.
Proposed Draft Standard for Ginseng Products23
23 ALINORM 05/28/15 Appendix II
73. The Delegations of India, Thailand and Malaysia expressed their opposition to the adoption of the Proposed Draft Standard for Ginseng Products at Step 5. Referring to the guidance by the 27th Session of the Commission, these delegations pointed out that the current provisions in the proposed draft standard extended beyond foods as they also referred to extracted and concentrated ginseng, which required to address the issue of high levels of active compounds and should therefore be redrafted so that the standard would cover only foods. The Delegation of India stated that the current draft standard was not generic and that the types of Ginseng covered in Section 2.1 should not be limited to a single variety of Panax ginseng. The Delegation of the Republic of Korea pointed out that the above concerns had already been considered at the 14th Session of the Coordinating Committee for Asia, and stressed that it would be more efficient to draft a standard for ginseng products with a priority given to Panax ginseng C.A Meyer and then to elaborate a standard for other species of ginseng based on experience and expertise accumulated in the future.
74. The Commission agreed to return the Proposed Draft Standard for comments at Step 3 and requested that the Coordinating Committee for Asia address the issues above at its next session.
Proposed Draft Maximum Level for Total Aflatoxins in Unprocessed Almonds, Hazelnuts and Pistachios24
24 ALINORM 05/28/12, Appendix XXII
75. The Delegation of Norway expressed its reservation to the proposed draft maximum level, which was higher than the level in their legislation (10 µg/kg). The Delegation indicated that Norway would continue to use this lower level because: the high carcinogenic and genotoxic effect of aflatoxins called for the application of the ALARA principles; the Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Aflatoxins Contamination in Tree Nuts would allow for further reduction in the level of contamination; the publicizing of nutritional values of these products might lead to an increased intake of these products; and, the sorting and processing of pistachios and hazelnuts, contrary to peanuts, did not significantly reduce the aflatoxins levels.
76. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Maximum Level at Step 5 as proposed by the Committee and advanced it to Step 6. The Delegation of the European Community stated that their possible future acceptance of this level would depend on the outcome of the ongoing discussion on the maximum level for total aflatoxins in processed almonds, hazelnuts and pistachios.
Proposed Draft Maximum levels for Cadmium in Marine Bivalve Molluscs (excluding oysters and scallops) and in cephalopods (without viscera) and in polished rice25
25 ALINORM 05/28/12, Appendix XXVI
77. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Maximum Levels for cadmium at Step 5 as proposed by the Committee and advanced them to Step 6. It noted the reservation of the Delegations of China, the European Community, Egypt, Norway, Nigeria, Singapore and Switzerland, concerning the maximum levels of cadmium in polished rice. The Commission noted the concern of the Delegations of South Africa, Thailand and Chile, supported by several other delegations, regarding the maximum levels of cadmium in marine bivalve molluscs, which were considered too low to be practicable, and in cephalopods and gastropods, and should be set at a level based on ALARA principles; the need to better define the range of species to which the maximum levels were applicable in order to avoid trade barriers created by levels set by national legislations; and the use of these levels for processed products, such as dried molluscs. These delegations suggested that these issues need to be further considered by the CCFAC.
Proposed Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods: Quantitative Declaration of Ingredients26
26 ALINORM 05/28/22, Appendix II
78. The Delegation of the United States expressed its objection to the adoption of the Proposed Draft Amendment at Step 5 as four significant provisions remained in square brackets. The Delegation pointed out that divergent views still existed on several issues of principle requiring considerable discussion and therefore proposed to return the Proposed Draft to Step 3 for further consideration by the Committee. This position was supported by several delegations and some observers.
79. The Delegation of Malaysia supported the adoption of the amendment at Step 5, as there had been consensus in the Committee on the advancement of the Proposed Draft to Step 5; significant progress had been made on the text after extensive discussion; and the remaining issues could be addressed by further discussion in the Committee. This position was supported by several delegations and some observers.
80. After an extensive discussion, the Commission recognized that there was no consensus on the adoption of the Proposed Draft Amendment at Step 5 and agreed to return it to Step 3 for further consideration by the Committee on Food Labelling.
Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs)27
27 ALINORM 05/28/24, Appendix VI
81. The Chairperson of the CCPR informed the Commission that a number of MRLs for trifloxystrobin proposed by the 2004 JMPR and presented in the draft report of the Committee had been inadvertently omitted in Appendix VI of ALINORM 05/28/24. The Commission adopted the proposed MRLs including the above at Step 5 and advanced them to Step 6.
Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Levels in/on Dried Chili Peppers and Spices28
28 ALINORM 05/28/24, Appendix VII
82. The Commission adopted the proposed draft MRLs for Dried Chili peppers including the MRLs for spices at Step 5 and advanced them to Step 6. The Commission noted that the MRL for monocrotophos (054) and pirimiphos-methyl (086) were already deleted by the CCPR and that the list of MRLs in Appendix VII of ALINORM 05/28/24 should be corrected accordingly.
Proposed Draft Guidelines on the Estimation of Uncertainty of Results29
29 ALINORM 05/28/24, Appendix XII
83. The Delegation of China expressed its concern regarding the estimation of uncertainty and indicated that the global food trade was impeded by the absence of internationally agreed value of confidence and compliance levels and suggested that this problem should be considered during further elaboration of the Guidelines by the Committee. The Delegation of Argentina suggested to revise Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 regarding the established levels of confidence for exported products and for those traded in the domestic market to avoid creation of a double standard for foods depending on their destination.
84. The Commission adopted the proposed draft Guidelines at Step 5 as proposed by the Committee and advanced them to Step 6 with the understanding that the above comments would be considered by the next Session of the Committee.
Proposed Draft Risk Analysis Principles Applied by the Committee on Pesticide Residues30
30 ALINORM 05/28/24, Appendix XIII
85. The Commission noted that concern regarding inconsistency between the proposed principle of the selection of experts for JMPR and the relevant principle for selection of experts presented in Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Application in the Framework of the Codex Alimentarius Commission would be considered during further elaboration of the document and adopted the Proposed Draft Risk Analysis Principles at Step 5 as proposed by the Committee.
Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Veterinary Drugs31
31 ALINORM 05/28/31, Appendix V
86. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits at Step 5 as proposed by the Committee and advanced them to Step 6 and noted the reservation of the Delegation of the United States concerning the maximum residue limit for pirlimycin in cattle milk.
Recommended International Code of Practice for the Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Foods32
87. The Commission noted that work on quality provisions of the Code had been carried out by correspondence, coordinated by the US Secretariat. The Commission also noted that all the quality provisions in square brackets had been removed although a few pending comments of this nature still needed to be addressed. The Commission further noted that some provisions involving both quality and safety aspects required further work or clarification to enable finalization of the quality provisions. In this regard, some countries expressed concern as regards the application of DAP (Defect Action Point) analysis vis-à-vis HACCP system.
88. The Commission endorsed the recommendation of the Executive Committee33 to return the Code to Step 3 for circulation, comments and finalization by correspondence as per those quality provisions identified in the sections containing provisions addressing both safety and quality, with a view to its adoption at Step 5 at the 29th Session of the Commission. It was agreed that the Codex Secretariat would cooperate with the US Secretariat in the preparation of the Circular Letter inviting comments at Step 3. Subsequent work on the Code would be transferred to the Committee on Food Hygiene for finalization of hygiene/safety provisions.
33 ALINORM 05/28/3A, paras. 19–21
