Date Marking of Retail Units
91. The delegates of Argentina and the Federal Republic of Germany wished to reiterate their concern for the necessity to declare the date of manufacture, packing or a time limit for certain foods. In this connection, reference was made to the following standards which have been discussed by the Commission at this session: quick-frozen fillets of cod and haddock, of ocean perch, special dietary foods with low sodium content (including salt substitutes), and certain standards concerning milk products.
Declaration of Country of Origin
92. The delegate of Argentina reaffirmed the position of his Government that the declaration of country of origin was mandatory on prepackaged foodstuffs in Argentina.
93. The Commission had before it the above draft standards which were contained in Appendices II to V of ALINORM 71/14 and Appendices II and IV of ALINORM 71/14(A).
94. The Chairman of the Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on the Standardization of Fruit Juices, Prof. W. Pilnik (The Netherlands) informed the Commission that the Group had given careful consideration to all of the specific points which had been raised by the Commission at its Seventh Session (paragraph 108, ALINORM 70/43) and the replies of the Group were contained in detail in the Reports of its Seventh and Eighth Sessions (ALINORM 71/14 and 71/14(A). The Commission noted that the Group had been able to remove the inconsistencies from the draft standards. The Commission noted that the maximum limits for tin in these standards (250 mg/kg except in the case of apple juice where the limit is 150 mg/kg) had been temporarily endorsed and would be subject to review by the Codex Committee on Food Additives in two years time when it was hoped to carry out a complete study of the levels of tin in all foods and make recommendations to the Commission in connection with all draft and recommended standards.
95. The Commission also noted the editorial amendments to be made to the draft standards for Apricot, Peach and Pear Nectars, Orange Juice, Grapefruit Juice and Lemon Juice in the light of the decisions taken by the Group at its Eighth Session. These were contained in ALINORM 71/30 (page 28) and are as follows:
In the draft standards for Orange Juice, Grapefruit Juice and Lemon Juice, the Definition Section should be expanded in such a way that the last sentence in each of the three draft standards reads as follows:
“The juice may have been concentrated and later reconstituted with water suitable for the purpose of maintaining the essential composition and quality factors of the juice.”
In the draft standards for Orange Juice, Grapefruit Juice and Lemon Juice, the sub-section entitled “Organoleptic Properties” should be editorially amended to read as follows:
“The product shall have the characteristic colour, aroma and flavour of juice. Natural volatile juice components may be restored to any juice from which natural juice components have been removed.”
In each standard the name of the appropriate juice should be inserted.
In the four draft standards, the sub-section entitled “Net Contents” in the labelling section should be editorially amended to read as follows:
“Net Contents
The net contents shall be declared by volume in one or more of the following systems of measurement: Metric (“Système International”), U.S. or British Units, as required by the country in which the product is sold.”
In the four draft standards, the reference in the Hygiene section to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Deep-Frozen Fruit and Vegetable Products should be changed to read: “Code of Hygienic Practice for Quick-Frozen Fruits, Vegetables and their Juices”.
Minimum Content of Fruit Ingredient
96. The Commission noted that some countries had suggested in their comments that the minimum fruit content of fruit ingredients should be increased to 50% for peach and pear nectars and 40% for apricot nectars. The delegate of Italy reserved the position of Italy on minimum fruit content and stated that in his opinion and according to Italy's experience, a higher percentage of fruit ingredient was necessary in these nectars. It was pointed out that these figures had been fully discussed by the Group and that the figures in the present text represented a compromise which had been reached over a number of years. The Commission decided not to amend this provision.
Apparent Viscosity
97. The delegate of Poland proposed that this section of the draft standard should be deleted, as in his opinion there should be seperate figures for each of the three nectars as they were derived from different species. It was pointed out that the Group had considered that it was necessary to establish a maximum figure based on the lowest viscosities found and that this figure would ensure a product of reasonable equality. The Commission decided not to amend this provision.
Adoption of Standard at Step 8
98. The Commission adopted the draft standard for Apricot, Peach and Pear Nectars at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards as Recommended Standards.
Volatile Acids
99. The Commission considered a proposal made by the delegate of Yugoslavia to amend Section 2.4 so as to fix a limit for volatile acids instead of allowing “traces” of these acids. As no figure was proposed for this limit, the Commission decided not to amend this section.
Contaminants
100. The delegate of Spain proposed that the maximum limit for arsenic should be lowered to 0.1 mg/kg and that the maximum limit for lead should be raised to 0.5 mg/kg. The delegate of Spain reserved his country's position on the decision of the Commission not to alter the maximum limit for arsenic. The delegate of France pointed out that children were among the highest consumers of orange juice and that a figure of 0.5 mg/kg for lead would be too high. The Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Additives informed the Commission that a figure of 0.3 mg/kg for lead had only been temporarily endorsed. This limit would be re-examined in two years. The Commission decided not to change the figures for contaminants. The delegate of Italy maintained the position taken by the Italian delegation at the 7th Session of the Group of Experts, namely to reserve the position of Italy regarding lead content.
Soluble Solids Content
101. The Commission considered a proposal made by the delegate of Australia and supported by the delegate of India that minimum soluble solids content should be lowered to 10° Brix (instead of 10.5° Brix). The delegate of Australia explained that the figure of 10.5° Brix at 20°C as provided for in the soluble solids section of the Standard for Orange Juice was too high for Australian conditions and that if the 10.5° Brix figure were retained the developing Australian fruit juice industry would have great difficulty in meeting the requirement. The reasons for this difficulty were complex and were thought to be closely bound up with the geographic and climate conditions under which Australian oranges were produced. In some producing areas in Australia only a 9.5° Brix level could be achieved during certain months of the year, while in other areas numerous tests over a three year period had indicated quite positively that the lowest workable limit was 10.0° Brix. The Commission decided by 27 to 10 with 3 abstentions to lower the minimum soluble solids content to 10° Brix.
Citrus Reticulata
102. The Commission considered a proposal of the delegate of United States of America supported by the delegate of India to allow the addition of mandarine juice (Citrus reticulata) up to a maximum of 10% m/m to orange juice to improve its organoleptic properties (flavour and colour). The delegate of Belgium stated that if the Commission accepted this proposal then Section 2.6 should be amended to refer to a mixture of orange and mandarine juices. The delegate of The Netherlands proposed that the maximum permissible addition of mandarine juice to orange juice without declaration on the label should be reduced to 5% m/m and the addition of amounts up to 10% should be accompanied by a label declaration as “mixed juice”. Some delegates supported this view point. A number of delegates stated that, if the product was called “orange juice” it should be orange juice only and no species other than Citrus sinensis should be permitted. If the addition of mandarine juice were to be allowed, then the consumer should be informed of this addition. This view was supported by the observer of the International Organization of the Consumers' Unions. The United States delegate informed the Commission that if the addition of Citrus reticulata up to 10% were to be permitted, then the presence of mandarine juice would have to be declared in the complete list of ingredients as required by Section 6.2.1 of the Draft Standard. The Commission decided by 32 to none with 8 abstentions to permit the addition of Citrus reticulata up to a maximum of 10% in orange juice with declaration in the list of ingredients.
Sugars
103. The Commission decided not to accept an amendment proposed by the delegate of Italy to lower the maximum amount of sugars permitted to 30 g/kg.
Adoption of Standard at Step 8
104. The Commission adopted the draft standard for Orange Juice at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards as a Recommended Standard.
Lemon Juice
105. The Commission noted that the maximum level of lead of 1 mg/kg in lemon juice had been temporarily endorsed and would be subject to review by the Codex Committee on Food Additives within two years of the adoption of the standard at Step 8.
106. The delegate of India, supported by a written proposal of the Argentine, proposed that the minimum requirement of total titratable acidity of lemon juice should be lowered to 4.0% m/m instead of 4.5%. This proposal was not accepted by the Commission as this figure had been already discussed fully by the Group of Experts on the basis of the figures found in lemon juices in international trade.
107. The Commission did not accept a proposal of the delegate of Italy to permit the addition of sugars to lemon juice as in the opinion of the Group of Experts this was not necessary as lemon juice had to be diluted for direct use as a beverage.
Adoption of Standards at Step 8
108. The Commission adopted the draft standards for Grapefruit Juice and Lemon Juice at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards as Recommended Standards.
Tin
109. The Commission was informed that the Group of Experts had agreed to a maximum level of tin of 150 mg/kg in apple juice. This figure had been temporarily endorsed. The Commission decided that this figure should be reviewed in two years time by the Codex Committee on Food Additives when the Committee made its general review of the maximum limits for tin.
Processing Aids
110. The delegate of The Netherlands considered that it was not appropriate to list processing aids, such as clarifying agents and filtration aids, in a commodity standard. In his view, the Codex Committee on Food Additives should establish a list of suitable processing aids which could be used in food processing. Other delegates explained how the processing aids had come to be listed in the standard. Taking into account that the listing of individual processing aids in this standard might be taken as a precedent for other commodity standards, the Commission decided without dissent to amend section 4 of this standard to read as follows:
“4. Processing Aids
4.1 Clarifying and filtering agents as approved by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and used in accordance with good manufacturing practice.
4.2 Others
4.2.1 Pure Vegetable Carbon
4.2.2 Pure Nitrogen
4.2.3 Pure Carbon Dioxide.”
It was noted that the Codex Committee on Food Additives would be taking the necessary steps in connection with the elaboration of lists of clarifying and filtering agents.
Adoption of Standard at Step 8
111. The Commission adopted the draft standard for Apple Juice at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards as a Recommended Standard.
Use of Concentrates
112. The delegate of Italy proposed that the use of tomato concentrates should not be permitted in the manufacture of tomato juice. The Commission noted that the Group of Experts had examined this matter on several occasions and decided therefore not to amend the standard. Switzerland had proposed in its written comments that the addition of spices to tomato juice should be permitted, in the same way as the addition of salt was permitted in the standard, since there could be some carry-over of spices in juices made from concentrates. The Commission, having noted that the Group of Experts had decided not to permit the addition of spices in this standard, made no alteration in the standard.
Adoption of Standard at Step 8
113. The Commission adopted the draft standard for Tomato Juice at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards as a Recommended Standard.
114. The Commission had before it ALINORM 71/25, Appendix II which contained the Draft Standard for Quick-Frozen Strawberries. In the absence of the Chairman of the Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on the Standardization of Quick-Frozen Foods, Mr. W. Linden (Belgium), the Secretariat gave a brief summary of the written comments which had been submitted by governments on this draft standard.
115. The Australian delegate drew attention to the fact that the standard applied to quick-frozen strawberries only, that is to say strawberries which had been subjected to a freezing process as laid down in the process definition section of the standard. The standard did not cover strawberries which had been subjected to any other freezing process. In these circumstances the provision in the labelling section of the standard which permitted the use, so far as the English language was concerned, of the term “frozen” as an alternative to the term “quick-frozen” could result in considerable confusion in some countries, where the term “frozen” might be used to describe a product subjected to a freezing process other than that laid down in the standard. A possible solution would be to remove one of the alternatives, so that it would be permissible to use only the term “quick-frozen” to describe the product covered by the present standard, and another standard could be elaborated to cover frozen strawberries, that is strawberries subjected to a freezing process other than that laid down in the standard. The delegates of New Zealand and Poland supported this point of view. It was made clear that the labelling provision concerning the use of the terms “frozen” and “quick-frozen” applied only in those English speaking countries where the term “frozen” was customarily used to describe the product covered by the standard. Neither the French nor the Spanish texts were affected by this. The Danish delegation expressed its concern with regard to the interpretation of the scope Section which, as drafted, appeared to permit products not complying with the standard to be freely distributed if the temperature of -18°C (0°F) was not reached during the freezing process. In this connection, some delegates indicated that if the term “frozen” was required in their countries as the correct description of the product processed in accordance with the definition of the freezing process (sub-section 2.2), strawberries described as ‘frozen’ but which did not comply with the standard could not be freely distributed; the legal position in a particular country would no doubt be clarified in its terms of acceptance.
116. The Commission recalled that it had considered this subject in considerable detail at its previous session. The Commission agreed therefore to make the appropriate changes in the present standard to bring it into line with what had been agreed upon in the Recommended Standard for Quick-frozen Peas. Thus, a footnote would appear in the text similar to that in the Recommended Standard for Quick-frozen Peas, which would read as follows:
“‘Frozen’: This term is used as an alternative to ‘quick-frozen’ in some English-speaking countries.”
The English words “frozen” and “quick-frozen” would appear in the footnote to the French and Spanish texts.
Direct Contact Refrigerants
117. The delegate of Ireland drew the attention of the Commission to the growing use of direct contact refrigerants in the quick freezing industry and to the fact that the use of such refrigerants caused residues in the food treated. As the use of these refrigerants was a comparatively new development and as the draft standard no longer contained a section on contaminants, this problem had not been previously considered by either the Joint Group of Experts or the Codex Committee on Food Additives. It was therefore suggested that the Group of Experts should study this problem, which would later need to be considered by the Codex Committee on Food Additives. The delegate of Belgium supported this proposal and added that as Belgium permitted the quick-freezing of food products by direct contact refrigerants subject to certain conditions concerning the refrigerant residues, Belgium would supply information on this subject to these Committees. The Commission agreed that this matter should be brought to the attention of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and the Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on Standardization of Quick-Frozen Foods.
Process Definition
118. The delegates of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Sweden reserved their positions as to the provision that “the product shall be maintained at a low temperature such as will maintain the quality during transportation, storage and distribution up to and including the time of final sale.” These delegates felt that this terminology was too vague and that the actual temperature should be stated in the standard.
Strawberries prepared with syrup
119. The Delegate of the U.S.A. felt that the total soluble solids content was too restrictive at 25% and should be increased to 30%. The delegate of India stated that, in view of the wide range of syrups permitted, it was desirable that the actual syrup strength should be mentioned on the label. The Commission made no change in the standard with respect to these proposals.
Tolerances for defects
120. The delegate of India considered that the number of stalks or parts of stalks in section 3.5.1(a) was too low and should be increased to five and that the draft standard should be amended accordingly. The Commission made no change in the standard with respect to this proposal.
Classification of ‘Defectives’
121. The delegate of The Netherlands considered that the provisions contained in section 3.6 “Classification of ‘Defectives’” of the draft standard were not properly harmonized with the preceding paragraphs on composition, quality factors and tolerances and that the Joint Group of Experts should examine this problem when elaborating other draft standards. The delegate of the U.S.A. drew the attention of the Commission to what in their opinion seemed to be an apparent inconsistency between section 3.6(c)(i) and section 3.5.1 “Tolerances for Defects” and requested that the Joint Group of Experts should study this point.
Name of the Food
122. The delegate of India proposed that the label should contain a declaration as to whether the quick-frozen strawberries were free-flowing or non-free-flowing. The Commission made no change in the standard with respect to this proposal.
Methods of Analysis
123. The delegate of the United Arab Republic considered that a method of analysis should be developed for the purpose of distinguishing, in the final product, between frozen and quick-frozen strawberries.
Adoption of the Standard at Step 8
124. The Commission adopted the draft standard for Quick-Frozen Strawberries at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards as a Recommended Standard.
125. The Commission had before it ALINORM 71/25, Appendices IV and V, which contained the Proposed Draft Standards for Quick-Frozen Peaches and Quick-Frozen Bilberries.
126. The delegate of Austria proposed that the colour type ‘green’ should be added to the Proposed Draft Standard for Quick-Frozen Peaches as had been done in the Recommended International Standard for Canned Peaches. The Commission agreed to amend the standard to include this colour type. The delegate of India was of the opinion that the total defects (a) to (f) in the standard for Quick-Frozen Bilberries should be not more than 15%.
Advancement of the Draft Standards to Step 6
127. The Commission agreed to advance the Draft Standards for Quick-Frozen Peaches and Quick-Frozen Bilberries to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of WorldWide Codex Standards. The Commission agreed that the attention of governments should be drawn to those changes of a general nature which would be applicable to these standards in the light of the decisions taken regarding the Recommended Standard for Quick-Frozen Strawberries.
128. The Commission considered the above standard which was contained in Appendix III of ALINORM 71/26. The Chairman of the Committee acted as Rapporteur. It was agreed that the following should be recorded in the Report.
1. Scope
1.1 The delegate of the Netherlands stated that a declaration on the label of products covered by this standard as “not salted” would be considered by them to imply that the food concerned “is intended for special dietary use by reason of its low sodium content”. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany, speaking also in his capacity as rapporteur, strongly supported this expression of view. The delegation of Belgium reserved its position on this.
The delegate of Belgium supported by the delegate of France, wished to place on record that in their opinion a food product with the indication on the label “no salt added” should not be considered as being covered by the Scope of the standard. The use of such a term should be allowed on foods intended for ordinary consumers who wished to reduce their salt intake without, however, having to resort to special dietary foods with low sodium content as defined in the standard.
1.2 The Committee discussed a proposal to amend this sub-section which indicated that the standard dealt only with the dietetic aspect of the particular food and not with the composition as such of these foods. It was agreed to amend sub-section 1.2 to read as follows:
“The standard refers only to the specific provisions related to the sodium content of these foods which are intended for special dietary uses. It does not refer to the composition of such foods including the use of additives except salt substitutes”.
3.1.1 (c)
The delegate of Canada stated that Canada would not be able to accept the standard for special dietary foods with low sodium content, because the provisions in the standard on sodium content did not correspond to Canadian practice which, on the basis of advice from clinicians, required a lower sodium content before such claims could be made. In the absence of support for a change in the standard, Canada withdrew its suggestion but recommended that, in the best interests of the work of the Commission, the standard should be advanced to Step 9 in spite of its difference with the Canadian national position.
3.1.3
The delegate of Poland wished to record that in his view the addition of salt substitutes to a special dietary food with low sodium content should be quantified and not be subject only to good manufacturing practice. He further reiterated Poland's position against the use of glutamic acid and its salts.
4. Labelling
The Commission agreed with the proposal of the delegate of Australia that the Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses should examine the entirety of the label declarations of dietetic foods and further elaborate the general guidelines which the Committee had developed earlier, so that reference could be made to them in the various standards.
4.1.4 The Commission considered the provision in this sub-paragraph requiring the mandatory declaration on the label of the average carbohydrate, protein and fat content in 100 g of the product as normally consumed, as well as the Calorie value. Some delegates thought that a mandatory declaration was inconsistent with the revised scope of the standard while others considered the information essential for the consumer and medical practitioners. The Commission agreed to leave the provision unchanged.
4.1.6
On a proposal of the delegate of France for the re-wording of section 4.1.6 the Commission agreed to the following revised wording:
“4.1.6 - When a salt substitute, composed entirely or partially of a potassium salt, has been added, the total amount of potassium, expressed as mg cation per 100 g of the food as normally consumed, shall be declared on the label.”
4.2.2
The Commission agreed to a proposal by the delegate of the United States of America, endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, to add “sodium” to the list of cations listed in this sub-section 4.2.2.
ADOPTION OF STANDARD AT STEP 8
129. The Commission adopted the draft standard at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Standards as a Recommended Standard.
130. The Commission considered the above standard contained in Appendix IV to ALINORM 71/26 at Step 5 of the Procedure and noted that the delegations of Switzerland and The Netherlands had prepared a draft standard covering products other than those complying with the provisions of the above standard. This draft would be considered by the Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses at its next session in conjunction with the standard for complete infant food.
131. The Commission decided to advance the draft standard for Complete Infant Food to Step 6 of the Procedure.
132. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Committee took note of the statement by the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany that the next session of the Committee would be held from 6 to 10 December 1971 in Bonn.
133. Several delegates expressed the view that practical residue limits only should be established for chlorinated hydrocarbons. The delegate of Australia emphasized that in a number of cases the continued use of chlorinated hydrocarbons was essential in agriculture and therefore it was important that tolerances be established for residues of these compounds arising as a result of good agricultural practice. The delegate of Australia expressed the view that the tolerances and practical residue limits proposed at Step 8 were realistic.
134. The delegate of Canada declared that in his opinion tolerances on pesticide residue limits should not appear again on the agenda of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues until all the data asked for had been made available to and evaluated by the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues, and relevant monographs had been made available to governments well before the sessions of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, at which the pesticide residue limits would be considered.
135. The delegate of Canada stated that some of the pesticides for which tolerances were proposed were not in fact allowed to be used in Canada. It would however be the intention of Canada to permit the importation of foodstuffs which complied with the recommended Codex tolerances and practical residue limits. The delegate of Poland indicated his general agreement with the recommended tolerances except those for dimethoate. The delegate of Japan expressed the view that the proposed tolerances at Step 8 for aldrin and dieldrin for various foods were too high.
136. The delegate of Canada sought clarification as to the status of the proposed temporary tolerances for certain compounds. The Commission noted that in the main the proposed temporary tolerances were so indicated as it was the intention of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee to reconsider in the near future their recommendations concerning either temporary ADIs or ADIs in the light of new toxicological data. The Commission was of the opinion that temporary tolerances might best be regarded as provisional recommendations of the Commission sent for acceptance to governments but which would remain applicable until such time as the revised tolerances had been adopted by the Commission. The delegate of Morocco drew attention to the need for the establishment of international methods of analysis and sampling for use in connection with the recommended tolerances and practical residue limits.
137. The Commission considered in detail the proposed tolerances, temporary tolerances and practical residue limits for residues of the compounds in the specified food products at Step 8 listed in Appendix II to ALINORM 71/24. The Commission adopted the proposed tolerances, temporary tolerances and practical residue limits in Appendix II as recommended standards with the exception of the practical residue limits of 0.1 ppm for aldrin and dieldrin in eggs on a shell-free basis, the temporary tolerance of 0.3 ppm for dichlorvos in fresh vegetables and the practical residue limit of 0.1 ppm for heptachlor in carrots, which were returned to Step 7 for reconsideration by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.
138. The Commission considered the tolerances temporary tolerances and practical residue limits submitted by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues at Step 5 and agreed to advance these to Step 6 of the Procedure.
139. The Commission noted that the Executive Committee at its 16th Session had recommended that the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards in respect of pesticide residues and contaminants be amended so that the omission of Steps 6, 7 and 8 would be possible by two thirds majority of votes cast. The proposed amendment reads as follows:
“It shall further be open to the Commission to authorize, on the basis of a two thirds majority of the votes cast, the omission of one or more of Steps 6, 7 and 8 of the Procedure in Parts I and II of this document in respect of standards for pesticide residues and contaminants elaborated by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues and the Codex Committee on Food Additives, where such an omission is recommended by the Committee concerned.”
140. The Commission did not adopt the proposal, but considered that it would be appropriate to obtain the view of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues on the above amendment proposed by the Executive Committee and also upon an alternative suggestion made by the delegate of the United Kingdom. The delegate of the United Kingdom suggested that, when considering draft standards at Step 4, the Committee on Pesticide Residues should be asked to divide them into those which would, in the Committee's view, need to be passed through the full procedure for the elaboration of Codex standards and those which could be advanced directly from Step 5 to Step 8. The Committee, when formulating its recommendations, should take all appropriate matters into consideration including the need for urgency, the government comments at Step 3 and the likelihood of new evidence becoming available in the immediate future. Any standards for which it was recommended that Steps 6, 7 and 8 could be omitted should be dealt with at the Commission's next following session under the procedure for dealing with Step 8 standards and the nature of any proposed amendments would, in the view of the United Kingdom, provide the Commission with the necessary basis on which to take action. It was the view of the United Kingdom that, in all these circumstances, the Commission might be expected to take its decision on all the proposed standards for pesticide residues in a similar way to other Step 8 decisions. If the Committee was able to indicate at its next meeting which tolerances could, in its view, be advanced with Steps 6 and 7 being omitted, its recommendations could, of course, be dealt with at the Ninth Session of the Commission.
141. The Commission was informed by the delegate of Denmark that the Government of Denmark hoped to be in a position to make the necessary preparations in order to host the above mentioned Ad Hoc working Group in Copenhagen from 11 to 16 October 1971. The Commission agreed with the proposal to hold the meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group and noted that the hosting of the meeting was subject to confirmation by the Danish authorities. Subsequently during the session, the delegation of Denmark informed the Commission that the Ministry of the Interior in Copenhagen had Confirmed that it would be able to arrange for meeting of an Ad Hoc working Group on Pesticide Residues in Copenhagen from 11 to 16 October 1971, with the provision of interpretation and translation facilities in English and French.
142. The Commission noted that the Government of Brazil had under consideration the possibility of offering to host the next session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues in Brazil. The delegate of The Netherlands informed the Commission that the Government of The Netherlands would be prepared to chair and provide the necessary technical secretariat for such a session. The Commission concurred with this proposal and noted the statement of the delegate of Brazil in which he reaffirmed the interest of his country in hosting the meeting and hoped to be in a position to communicate the final position of the Government of Brazil on this matter shortly.
143. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10, that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the Netherlands.
144. The Commission considered the above standards which were contained in Appendices II and III to ALINORM 71/18 and agreed to the following:
Title of the Standards
In view of the decisions taken by the Commission on the issue of the use of the terms “frozen” and “quick-frozen” (see paragraphs 115 and 116 of this Report) and of the decision which it took at its last session concerning the title of the standard for Quick-Frozen Gutted Pacific Salmon, the Commission decided that the titles of the draft standards for Frozen Fillets of Cod and Haddock and Frozen Fillets of Ocean Perch should read Quick-Frozen Fillets of Cod and Haddock and Quick-Frozen Fillets of Ocean Perch, respectively.
2.1 Product Definition
The delegate of Portugal stated that he considered only the species Gadus callarias to be cod and proposed, therefore, that reference to the species Gadus ogac and Gadus macrocephalus be deleted. The Commission recognized, however, that some countries did regard these latter two species as cod. For this reason and taking into account that the matter had been fully discussed at an earlier session of the Commodity Committee, the Commission decided that these two species should be retained in the product definition. The delegate of Portugal reserved his position on this decision.
2.2 Process Definition
A number of delegates were of the opinion that the clause in the Process Definition stating that the temperature to be maintained during transportation, storage and distribution of the product should be “flow”, was too vague. The delegate of Belgium wished the temperature to be clearly defined, and thought it preferable to indicate that the product should not attain a higher temperature than -18°C (0°F), up to and including the time of final sale. It was noted, however, that the Committee had not fixed a precise figure because the temperature at which the product was stored would normally be much lower than -18°C.
The delegate of Argentina reiterated that in his country the practice of thawing and subsequent re-freezing was not allowed.
4. Food Additives
The delegates of the Federal Republic of Germany and Argentina stated that certain food additives as listed in the draft standard were not acceptable under the legislation of their countries.
5. Hygiene
The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene had endorsed the hygiene provisions of the standards.
6. Labelling
The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that in his opinion the retail units should be marked with the date of the manufacture or packing. It was pointed out that this was a matter which would be dealt with in the future by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling.
6.1.1
The Commission agreed that the terminology it had adopted at its Seventh Session regarding the use of the terms “quick-frozen” and “frozen” in connection with peas (see para. 104, sub. 7.1(a) of ALINORM 70/43) would also apply to Quick-Frozen Fillets of Cod and Haddock and Ocean Perch.
Recommended Defect Table (Annex B to both Standards)
145. The Commission noted that in response to the instructions given by the Seventh Session of the Commission (1970), the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products had developed defect tables for the various standards. The Commodity Committee had come to the conclusion that, for the time being and until such time as a sampling plan was agreed upon, the defect tables should have a non-mandatory character and that in the meantime governments should be asked to examine critically the usefulness of the tables. It further noted that some delegations at the Fifth Session of the Commodity Committee (October 1970) were of the opinion that the tables should be made part of the standards and thus have a mandatory character. The Commission agreed to attach the optional tables to the standards and expressed the hope that governments would be in a position to advise in due course on the usefulness of the tables and on the suitability of the demerit points to be awarded for each defect.
146. Regarding Item 4 of the defect tables, Nematodes, the Commission agreed to amend the text as prepared by the delegation of the United Kingdom to read:
“4 - Nematodes (for Frozen Fillets of Ocean Perch, the title is: Nematodes and Copepodes). Each nematode (or copepode (Ocean Perch)) with a capsular diameter greater than 3 mm or each worm not encapsulated, greater than 1 cm in length, or each worm which is objectionable by virtue of its dark colour.”
147. The Commission discussed the following issues which were peculiar to the draft standard for Quick-Frozen Fillets of Ocean Perch:
2.1 Product Definition
The delegate of the U.S.A. indicated that the scientific name of the species Sebastodes alutus should be changed to read Sebastes alutus. It was agreed that after verification a change would be made in the final version of the standard.
2.3 Presentation
The Commission agreed to rectify the omission in the sub-section “Presentation” of fillets as “skin-on, unscaled” so that the section would read:
“2.3 Presentation
Fillets may be presented as:
- skin-on, unscaled; or
- skin-on, scaled (scales removed); or
- skinless
The fillets may be presented as boneless, provided that boning has been completed including the removal of pin bones.”
Adoption of Standard for Quick-Frozen Fillets of Cod and Haddock at Step 8
148. The Commission agreed to adopt the above standard at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards, as a Recommended Standard. The delegations of Cuba and Japan reserved their positions. They were of the opinion that the standards should not be adopted as Recommended Standards in the absence of a suitable sampling plan. Additionally, the delegate of Japan considered that such a sampling plan would need to be a mandatory part of the standard. The delegate of Portugal reserved his position, as he considered that only the species Gadus callarias should be considered as cod.
Adoption of Standard for Quick-Frozen Fillets of Ocean Perch at Step 8
149. The Commission noted that many of the comments and reservations made regarding the Standard for Frozen Fillets of Cod and Haddock were equally applicable to the above standard. The Commission agreed, therefore, that in the case of this standard it was not necessary to list these comments and observations individually. The Commission agreed to adopt the above standard at step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards, as a Recommended Standard. The delegations of Cuba and Japan reserved their positions for the same reasons as given for Quick-Frozen Fillets of Cod and Haddock (see paragraph 148).
150. The delegate of Australia was of the opinion that it would be wrong to have a standard only for such products as were subjected to the quick-freezing process definition laid down in the standard (sub-section 2.2) as this would exclude a product frozen by another process and would permit the indiscriminate use of the word “frozen”. After a thorough discussion on the pros and cons of having one standard covering “quickfrozen” and “frozen” products, the Commission decided that for the time being the quickfrozen products merited a standard for themselves, and it requested the delegation of Australia to prepare a working paper for consideration by the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery products with technological details about the “frozen” product and data on the extent of the international trade of the product.
151. The delegate of Denmark pointed out that with the available methods of examination it was not possible to distinguish a product frozen at a temperature slightly higher than -18°C (0°F) from a product frozen in compliance with the process definition.
152. The Commission had before it the proposed draft standard for Canned Tuna and Bonito in Water or Oil at Step 5 (Appendix V to ALINORM 71/18). The delegation of Japan reported that recent surveys on mercury in tuna caught in pollution-free areas showed an average mercury content of 1 ppm. Information collected by the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare was reviewed by a meeting of Japanese specialists on “Minamata disease”, toxicology and food sanitation. In view of the fact that tuna was a pelagic fish the specialists concluded that the mercury was of natural origin and at the level previously mentioned would not lead to “Minamata disease” in spite of the fairly high intake of tuna by Japanese people. The measurement of low levels of mercury content required advanced methods of analysis and special equipment. In Japan total mercury was measured by atomic absorption methods and methyl mercury was determined by gas chromatography. There was a need for the standardization at the international level of methods for determining mercury and methyl mercury in fish. The whole question of mercury in tuna should be examined by a wide range of experts from various countries in the world (see also paragraph 216 of this report). The delegate of Canada noted with some concern the statement made by the Japanese delegate that the consumption of large amounts of tuna containing 1 part per million of mercury would not cause “Minamata disease”. The delegate of Canada did not question this statement, but expressed the view that it implied that this level of mercury in fish even when consumed in large amounts, would not cause any toxicological manifestations. The delegate of Canada, supported by the delegates of the Federal Republic of Germany, the U.S.A., the United Kingdom and Sweden, was of the opinion that individuals, consuming large amounts of fish containing 1 part per million of mercury, might not avoid all possible toxicological effects, particularly when the fish is consumed over long periods of time. The Commission was informed that the next session of Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products would examine the problem of mercury and other metallic contaminants. The Secretariat had compiled information on mercury.
153. The delegate of Peru stressed the point that sub-section 2.1 of the section on Description needed to be further elaborated by taking into account other names by which the species of fish covered by the standard were commonly known. The delegates of Italy, Japan and Brazil expressed their concern about the eight species of Thunnus, the four species of Euthynnus and four species of Sarda which, in their opinion, should not be confused under the common names of tuna and/or bonito, with the delegate of Italy stating, in particular, that the name ‘tuna’ should be limited to the species Thunnus atlanticus and Euthynnus alletteratus and that the name tuna/bonito should be limited to the species Sarda. The chairman of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products explained to the Commission that this Section, and the labelling section were a compromise obtained between countries in which commercial practices and interests were different. Attention was drawn to the fact that governments would have every opportunity to submit their comments in detail on this subject when the standard would be sent out for comments at Step 6.
154. The Chairman of the Commodity Committee informed the Commission that new provisions were being developed by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene regarding sampling and examination of these products for the presence of pathogenic micro-organisms. He assured the Commission that the Committee would give careful consideration to this subject.
155. The Commission, after some deliberation, agreed to advance this standard to Step 6 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide codex Standards. The Commission recommended that the standard should not be submitted to the Commission at Step 8 until all matters of substance, in particular the matter of the species of fish to be covered by the standard, had been resolved.
156. The delegate of India drew the attention of the Commission to paragraph 92 of the above mentioned report and stated that under Indian legislation a mandatory provision for the maximum permissible bacteriological load for frozen and cooked shrimps had been established. Furthermore, a number of countries applied bacteriological standards. In the opinion of the delegate of India, there was a need, therefore, to reach international agreement on bacteriological standards. The delegate of India referred to paragraph 99 of the above report regarding a proposal made by the India delegation to the Fifth Session of the Commodity Committee to include in new work which the Committee might undertake standards for canned shrimps, dried or packed in brine and also that the Committee elaborate a standard for frogs legs.
157. The Commission was of the opinion that at present the Commodity Committee already had a very heavy workload but that, as early as possible, the proposals made by the delegate of India should be examined further.
158. The delegate of Canada drew the attention of the Commission to paragraph 14 of the Report in which the concern of some delegations to the Fifth Session of the Commodity Committee was recorded regarding the possible duplication of work and overlap as between the FAO codes of technological practice and the Codex Codes of Hygienic Practice presently being developed. The delegate of Canada drew attention to the difficulty in attempting to distinguish between technological matters and matters of hygiene, and added that at some stage of the work, the technological and hygienic codes would have to be made into one. The delegate of Canada proposed that the matter should be referred to the Executive Committee on how to proceed further. The delegate of Australia and the Chairman of the Commodity Committee supported the Candadian view. The Commission agreed that this matter should be considered by the Executive Committee at its next session.
159. The Commission confirmed, under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products should continue to be under the chairmanship of Norway.
162. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Processed Meat Products should continue to be under the chairmanship of Denmark.
164. There was general agreement that a Codex committee dealing with meat hygiene would be very desirable. The Commission examined the proposed scope of activities of the new Committee.
165. Many delegates were of the opinion that, in addition to the work on the Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Meat, which the new Committee would take over from the Codex Committee on Meat, the new Committee should deal with the hygienic aspects of international trade in boneless meat. International trade in boneless meat had rapidly increased in recent years and the main problems associated with it were of a hygienic nature. The delegate of Austria indicated that he would be willing to prepare proposals for standards for boneless meat on the basis of material made available to the Secretariat of Sub-Committee I by Australia and other countries. The delegate of Austria proposed that these proposals should cover two main aspects, namely, hygiene and composition. The former issue could be dealt with by the new Committee on Meat Hygiene and the latter could be handled by the Sub-Committee I on Cutting Methods and Cuts of Carcases. The delegate of Australia pointed out that the trade in boneless meat was essentially in the form of wholesale packs intended for further processing and that it was not a product which would normally enter the retail market. The Commission was of the opinion that the question of composition - content of fat, muscle, fibres, etc. - of the product was a matter normally covered by the commercial specifications and contracts between buyers and sellers, and therefore any work to be done in connection with boneless meat should be confined to hygiene matters.
166. The delegate of France referred to a document prepared by the Secretariat in which the Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Meat and the proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Processed Meat Products (CX/M/70/5 - CX/PMP/70/15) were presented in parallel to facilitate comparison to bring consistency where necessary between the two Codes. In his opinion, the two Codes should be merged.
167. Some delegates sought clarification as to what would be the scope of the new Committee's work in connection with meat hygiene. The delegate of Spain proposed that the name of the new Committee should be Codex Committee on Meat Inspection and Hygiene. The Commission agreed that the term “meat hygiene” should be interpreted in its broadest sense and would certainly encompass ante- and post-mortem meat inspection. It was considered that there was an urgent need for a code or even a standard to cover anteand post-mortem inspection. The delegate of New Zealand informed the Commission that he had in preparation a Draft Code for Ante- and Post-Mortem Inspection.
168. The delegate of Australia proposed that the same procedure as had been adopted for the drafting of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Meat, namely, a small ad hoc group of experts should be established to deal with the criteria for the ante- and post-mortem inspection of slaughter animals. This working group could produce a first draft which would be sent out to governments for comment, whereafter the new Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene, in the light of comments received, could discuss the draft at Step 2 of the Procedure.
169. Some delegates drew attention to the need to ensure that the work of the new Committee on Meat Hygiene did not lead to any overlap with the work being done by other Codex Committees. In order to avoid any duplication of work arising concerning that of the other Codex Committees dealing with meat, the Commission reviewed the terms of reference of these Committees, and also noted the recommendations of the Sixteenth Session of the Executive Committee with regard to the liaison between the Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Meat and the Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Processed Meat Products. It was agreed by the Commission that such codes of Hygienic practice which the new Committee on Meat Hygiene might develop would not have to be reviewed by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, nor would the Code of Hygienic Practice for Processed Meat Products.
171. The Commission was advised by the delegate of New Zealand that the New Zealand Government would be prepared to accept responsibility for the Chairmanship of the new Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene. The delegate of New Zealand, moreover, informed the Commission that sessions of the Committee would be held at the New Zealand High Commission in London and that simultaneous interpretation and translation facilities would be made available in English, French and Spanish. The Commission signified its appreciation of the offer of the New Zealand Government and confirmed under Rule IX. 10 that the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene should be under the chairmanship of the Government of New Zealand.
177. The delegate of India suggested that, in view of the fact that milk powders were used for reconstituting milk, the solubility index should be indicated on the label. The delegate of India also considered that the use of BHA and BHT should also be permitted in butteroil for direct human consumption as was the case with edible fats and oils. The method of drying of milk powder, whether sprayed or roller dried, should also be indicated on the label. The delegate of India concluded by stating that antioxidants should be permitted in whole milk and partly skimmed milk products. The delegate of Saudi Arabia and other delegates supported the delegate of India regarding the use of antioxidants. The delegates of Ghana and France drew attention to the problem of distinguishing, in labelling, between milk substitutes and milk products. It was pointed out that milk substitutes did not fall within the terms of reference of the Milk and Milk Products Committee. The delegate of Ghana stressed the need for giving attention to milk substitutes and was of the opinion that this was a matter which might be considered by the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany agreed that this matter would be brought to the attention of the Codex Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses. The Commission agreed that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling might also look into this problem, but it was pointed out that before the matter of labelling of milk substitutes could be considered by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, it would be necessary to know the composition of these products.
178. The Commission noted with satisfaction the steps taken by the Milk and Milk Products Committee following the recommendations of the Seventh Session of the Commission concerning the governing paragraph on the relationship between the Commission and the Committee, and the Procedure for the Elaboration of Milk and Milk Product Standards. The Commission also noted that the Committee was considering a system of classification of cheeses (paragraph 38 of the Report of the 13th Session of the Committee), which would assist in dealing with the problem of the numerous individual cheese varieties for which standards were being proposed by governments. The standards for individual cheeses would have to be considered against the background of the work criteria to which the Commission had drawn attention in paragraph 199 of the Report of its Seventh Session. The Commission stressed the importance of confining work to foods which met the work criteria and were significant in international trade. The Commission wished to draw the attention of the Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products to the fact that the application of “appellation d'origine” extended beyond dairy products and even beyond the whole field of food, and thought that some guidance on how to deal with this subject should be sought from the Executive Committee. While the Commission was aware of the complexity of the questions connected with “application d'origine”, it agreed that some consideration should be given to this subject by the Executive Committee at its next session insofar as the work of the Commission was concerned, in the light of background material to be made available by the Legal Office of FAO.
179. The Commission was informed by the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany as to the present status of methods of analysis to be included in standards at Step 9. The Commission had before it ALINORM 71/30, Part II, Annex (and Appendices I-III) which contained a synopsis of the status of the endorsements with references to the appropriate paragraphs in the Reports of the Committee.
180. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling, at its Sixth Session, considered a proposal of the Secretariat of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils and of the Codex Secretariat that the methods already endorsed for the determination of iron, copper, lead and arsenic should also be included in the Recommended International Standard for Margarine (CAC/RS 32-1969). The Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling was in agreement with this proposal and endorsed the methods for margarine referenced in paragraph 18 of ALINORM 71/23. The Commission adopted these methods as international referee methods and instructed the Secretariat to send them to Governments for use in conjunction with the Recommended Standard for Margarine.
181. The Commission, at its Seventh Session, agreed that the method for the determination of tocopherols adopted and described in the Recommended International Standard for Margarine should be considered by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling with a view to endorsing its use in the Recommended International Standard for Olive Oils, Virgin and Refined and for Refined Olive-residue Oil (CAC/RS 33-1969). The Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling had endorsed this method for olive oils.
182. The Commission was informed by the delegates of Spain and Italy that a new and more simple method had been developed by the Fats and Oils Section of IUPAC for the determination of tocopherols in olive oil. The Commission noted that the new proposed IUPAC method was still subject to collaborative study and therefore decided to adopt the method endorsed by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling, on the understanding that when the IUPAC method had been subjected to collaborative studies, the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils would review the method and make appropriate recommendations to the Commission.
183. The Commission was informed that the Federal Republic of Germany was not in a position to continue the chairmanship and hosting of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling. The Commission expressed its appreciation for the major contribution made by Prof. Dr. Franck as the Chairman of the Committee in successfully advancing for adoption by the Commission international referee methods of analysis. The Commission also expressed its appreciation to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany for the excellent facilities which it had always provided for the servicing of the Committee.
190. The delegate of the United Kingdom introduced the working papers (ALINORM 71/21, Adds. 1 and 2) on the proposed draft standard for Powdered Dextrose (Icing Dextrose). The Commission noted that the matters raised in Government comments had been dealt with by proposed amendments to Section 2.2 (Quality Criteria) and Section 6.1 (Labelling) and that the labelling provisions had been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling. The Commission agreed to the proposed amendments and to other editing changes and, on the proposal of the United Kingdom, adopted the draft standard at Step 5 and, there being no dissent, omitted Steps 6 and 7 and adopted the standard as a recommended standard at step 8 for advancement to Step 9. The standard as adopted is contained in Appendix IV to this Report.
193. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany questioned the need for issuing individual codes of hygienic practice as separate booklets, in view of the fact that in most cases, particularly where products of non-animal origin were concerned, the individual codes consisted in the main of a repetition of the General Principles of Food Hygiene. This view was supported by the delegate of Poland and the delegates of a number of other countries. One of the difficulties was that amendments proposed to the individual codes of hygienic practice would, in many cases, amount to proposed amendments to the General Principles of Food Hygiene.
194. The delegate of Canada, referring to work in progress on the development of codes of hygienic practice and codes of technological practice for certain fish and fishery products, drew attention to the need for a closer coordination of activities in this area between the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products and the FAO ad hoc Consultations on Fish and Fishery Products. Closer coordination was necessary in order to avoid duplication of effort in the development of codes of hygienic practice and technological practice for fish and fishery products.
195. The Commission agreed to refer the above two matters to the Executive Committee for consideration at its next session.
197. A number of proposed amendments contained in ALINORM 71/30, some of which applied to all three codes of hygienic practice before the Commission, were reviewed. The discussions centred, in particular, on the difficulty in changing the text where it had been taken literally from the International Recommended General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1-1969). The Commission did not consider it appropriate at this stage to make indirectly any amendments in the General Principles, even though some of the proposals might merit consideration at a later stage. The commission decided not to make any amendments in the text of the Code.
Adoption of the Draft Code at Step 8
198. The Commission adopted the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Desiccated Coconut at Step 8 of the Procedure as a Recommended Code.
199. The Commission considered the above Draft Code which was contained in Appendix III to ALINORM 71/13.
Scope
200. The Commission agreed, following a proposal by the delegate of Poland, to delete the reference to maximum moisture content of 5% m/m for fruits as in the standards no exact limit was set for the moisture content of vegetables or fungi. As amended this particular paragraph in the scope section would read: “Fruits covered by this Code include, but are not limited to apples, bananas, cranberries, cherries, bilberries.”
Adoption of the Draft Code at Step 8
201. The Commission adopted the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Dehydrated Fruits and Vegetables including Edible Fungi at Step 8 of the Procedure as a Recommended Code.
202. The Commission considered the above Draft Code which was contained in Appendix IV to ALINORM 71/13. The delegation of Poland had pointed out in their written comments that in their opinion the Code was not ready for acceptance because in the document reference was made to the Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Processing and Handling of Quick-Frozen Foods being developed by the Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on Quick-Frozen Foods, which was only at Step 2 of the Procedure.
203. A number of delegates agreed with the Polish observations and proposed that for the time being the Code should be held at Step 8 of the Procedure. In the meantime, the Joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius Group of Experts on the Standardization of Quick-Frozen Foods would have time to develop a code covering the technological aspects of the matter. The delegate of Australia stressed the need for the technological code and the code of hygienic practice to be consistent with each other so that at a given stage they might be considered together. This procedure did not necessarily imply that the two codes should be merged.
Retention of Code at Step 8
204. The Commission took no decisions on the text of the Code, and decided to hold the Code at Step 8 pending review by the Executive Committee of the overall matter of elaborating codes of technological and hygienic practice.
205. The Commission considered the above code contained in Appendix VI to ALINORM 71/13 at Step 5 of the Procedure.
206. The Commission decided to advance the Code of Hygienic Practice for Poultry and Poultry Parts to Step 6 of the Procedure.
208. The Commission had before it a Recommended List of Flour Treatment Agents at Step 8 (Appendix IV, ALINORM 71/12). The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Food Additives, at its Seventh Session, had proposed that the list should be an advisory list, having the same status as the list of food colours contained in Appendix VII of ALINORM 70/43, namely an open list of additives which had been found acceptable from a toxicological point of view by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives.
209. The Federal Republic of Germany, France, Poland, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, Yugoslavia and Saudi Arabia did not consider the substances on the list, other than ascorbic acid, necessary for flour treatment purposes. The delegate of the U.S.A. considered that the list was very incomplete and might even create misunderstanding, as large quantities of flour, treated with other flour treatment agents for different technological purposes, were being marketed throughout the world. The delegate of Canada drew to the attention of the Commission the importance of obtaining information from Member Governments as to which flour treatment agents they permitted. The delegate of the United Kingdom suggested that the precedent established at the Seventh Session of the Commission when dealing with food colours should be followed in every particular, for example, in the way the list was presented. The Commission agreed to treat the list as an “indicative” open list and decided to return it to the Codex Committee on Food Additives at Step 7 of the Procedure for re-consideration in the light of the above comments and additional information to be provided by the delegation of the U.S.A. concerning other flour treatment agents.
210. The Commission was informed by the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Food Additives that the Committee was considering the development of lists for other classes of food additives and, in view of the action taken by the Commission regarding the flour treatment agents, there appeared to be a need for a clarification of the policy of the Commission on the status of such lists. The Commission agreed that this matter should be considered by the Executive Committee at its next session so that some guidelines could be drawn up to assist the Codex Committee on Food Additives in the preparation of such lists.
211. The Commission had before it the Proposed Draft General Standard for Enzyme Preparations for Food Use (Appendix III, ALINORM 71/12) for decision as to whether it should be developed as a mandatory or advisory text. The Commission noted that, since the development of the text which was before the Commission, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, at its 15th Session (16–24 June 1971) had given detailed consideration to enzymes used in food processing and had developed a general specification for such enzymes, accompanied by a number of specifications for individual enzyme preparations. In view of this, the Commission decided not to proceed further with the present text, it being understood that the specifications prepared by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives would follow the steps of the Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and in due course be submitted to the Commission. The Commission expressed its appreciation of the work done by the delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany and the U.S.A. in the development of the proposed text and, in particular, emphasized the valuable role it had played in the deliberations of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives.
212. The Commission had before it the recommendation of the Seventh Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives to bring to the attention of the International Vine and Wine Office (IWO) the problem of high intake of sulphur dioxide resulting from its use as an additive, especially in wine and to invite the organization to consider steps to reduce the maximum permitted loads of sulphur dioxide. (Paragraph 20, ALINORM 71/12).
213. The Commission took note of the work which was being done by the International Wine Office to reduce the concentration of sulphur dioxide in wine and the importance that was being given to carrying out various investigations in this field. The Commission expressed its appreciation of the work of the International Wine Office and for the assistance and information it was making available to the Codex Committee on Food Additives in regard to this matter. The Commission requested the Codex Committee on Food Additives to follow the progress of the IWO studies.
214. The Commission had before it for consideration a Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Specifications for Food Additives proposed by the Codex Committee on Food Additives and amended by the 16th Session of the Executive Committee (paragraphs 12-14, ALINORM 71/3). The Commission adopted the following procedure:
“Steps 1 and 2
The Secretariat distributes the specifications, when available from the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, and requests comments from governments and interested international Organizations.
Steps 3 and 4
The Codex Committee on Food Additives examines the specifications in the light of comments. The comments are also made available by the Secretariat to the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. The Expert Committee's opinion is also placed before the Codex Committee on Food Additives.
Step 5
Only those specifications which, in the opinion of the Codex committee on Food Additives, are suitable for publication as recommended international specifications for food additives and for which Steps 6, 7 and 8 could be omitted, should be submitted to the Codex Alimentarius Commission at Step 5 for final adoption.”
215. At the request of the Seventh Session of the Commission, the Codex Committee on Food Additives considered the question whether it would be desirable to hold a third Joint FAO/WHO Conference on Food Additives in the light of a working paper prepared by the Federal Republic of Germany and Canada (paragraphs 15-17, ALINORM 71/12), and concluded that provided its terms of reference were enlarged, it could discuss the agenda items proposed for such a conference. The proposal was considered by the Executive Committee at its 16th Session (ALINORM 71/3) and again at the 17th Session in the light of proposals for a revised agenda (paragraphs 16-21, and Appendix IV, ALINORM 71/4).
216. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany emphasized the need for holding such a conference because, since the Second Conference in 1965, a large number of Member Governments had joined the Commission and the holding of a Third Food Additives Conference would provide an opportunity for these government to review the work of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. The Conference would also enable FAO and WHO to elicit the views of the new members on the Expert Committee's work and afford an opportunity to prepare guidelines for future work and establish priorities for further work, especially in the area of food contaminants. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany proposed that the Commission should recommend to FAO and WHO that such a conference would be held in 1972. The delegate of Canada supported the proposal for the holding of the conference and drew particular attention to the need for reviewing the technological justification regarding the use of food additives and the need to establish priorities for the assessment of the health hazards associated with food contaminants. The delegate of the U.S.A. was not convinced of the need to hold such a conference and drew attention to paragraphs 16-21 of ALINORM 71/4 containing the recommendations of the Executive Committee. The delegate of the U.S.A. emphasized that the proposed agenda of the conference should be communicated to Member Government for comments so that these matters could be considered further in the governing or other appropriate bodies of FAO and WHO. The delegate of the United Kingdom was not convinced as to the need for such a conference. This was not meant to convey that in the opinion of the United Kingdom all was well with the current procedure regarding the evaluation of food additives. The delegate of the United Kingdom supported the proposal made by the U.S.A. regarding the adoption of the recommendations made by the Executive Committee. The delegate of Japan was of the opinion that there was a need for a forum to discuss the broad issues contained in the proposed agenda of the conference. The Commission adopted the views expressed by the Executive Committee at its 17th Session and the recommendations contained in paragraph 21 of their report (ALINORM 71/4). The Commission recommended that the Directors-General should communicate the proposed draft agenda to all Member Governments suggesting that they consult, where appropriate, the Codex Contact Points and request governments to indicate their views as to the desirability of convening the proposed conference and also their suggestions as to what subjects should be considered by such a conference. The Directors-General were requested to draw attention to the fact that at the next conference of FAO (November 1971) these matters would be under consideration as part of the Programme Work and Budget for 1972/73. The Commission requested the Codex Committee on Food Additives to include in its list of priorities for the Expert Committee on Food Additives the need to establish an international acceptable daily intake for mercury.
217. The delegate of Japan suggested that there was a need to clarify the meaning of the term “not endorsed” in the classification used by the Commission to indicate the status of Guanylic Acid and Inosinic Acid. The Commission noted that these two substances could not be endorsed due to the need for further data to enable them to be toxicologically evaluated.
218. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Food Additives should continue to be under the Chairmanship of the Government of Netherlands.
219. The Commission had before it the above standard which was contained in Appendix II to ALINORM 71/20. The Rapporteur, Mr. L. Beacham (U.S.A.) reviewed the comments of substance which had been made on the standard. The rapporteur informed the Commission that all of these points were matters which had been considered by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruit and Vegetables and on which the Committee had come to a conclusion.
Title and Product Definition
220. In the Title and Product Definition section of the Spanish version of the standard, it was noted that the Spanish text should provide for the word “freson” to be included as well as “fresa”.
Packing Media
221. The delegate of India proposed that fructose should be included in the list of sugars, but the Commission decided not to make any change in the standard in this respect at this stage, and referred the matter to the Committee for consideration. The Commission considered a proposal made by a number of delegates to limit the categories of syrup to two, namely light syrup and heavy syrup. The Commission was informed that the number of syrup categories had been thoroughly discussed in the Committee, where the great majority of the delegations present had expressed their preference for four categories of syrup strengths as appeared in the Standard. The subject of categories of syrup had again been discussed at the Eighth Session of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruit and Vegetables in connection with other standards. The Committee had concluded that the four categories of syrup strengths were necessary to take into account the needs of all the producing countries, a number of which needed four syrup strengths to meet consumer demand. The Committee had also concluded that, while the four categories of syrup strengths were broad enough to cover the entire range of all the countries' needs, they were at the same time sufficiently flexible not to place any significant difficulties in the way of individual countries since a range of syrup strengths was provided in each category. The delegation of Yugoslavia proposed that the strengths of the packing media in canned strawberries, canned plums and other similar products should, in addition to being indicated by the name of the category of syrup, also be expressed in terms of percentage of sugar, so that the consumer would be fully and clearly informed. The Commission made no change in the standard in this respect.
222. The Commission decided by 17 to 14, with 8 abstentions not to amend the standard to replace the four categories of syrup strengths by two syrup strengths, namely light (not less than 18° Brix) and heavy (not less than 22° Brix).
Defects and Allowances
223. The delegate of Spain drew the Commission's attention to the fact that the Spanish word “bayas” was not a correct translation of the word “berries”.
Food Additives
224. The delegate of Yugoslavia reserved Yugoslavia's position on the use of colours in canned strawberries and other similar products. The delegate of New Zealand also stated that New Zealand was opposed to the use of colours in canned fruit and vegetable products, except in the case of cherries in canned fruit cocktail. The representative of the IOCU also expressed a doubt as to the need for artificial colours in this and other similar products. The delegate of India suggested that the amount of colour be reduced from 300 to 200 mg/kg. It was pointed out that some countries permitted the use of artificial colours in canned strawberries and in various other canned fruit and vegetable products, while others did not. The Commission was informed that this subject had been thoroughly discussed by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables. The Commission decided to make no change in the standard.
225. The Commission agreed to provide for a maximum tolerance for tin at the level of 250 mg/kg in this standard and in any other processed fruit and vegetable standards to be considered at the session in accordance with the recommendation of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables at its last session held in May 1971. The Commission emphasized that this was a provisional tolerance which would be subject to review in two years time in the Codex Committee on Food Additives. A number of delegations reserved their positions on the maximum limit for tin.
Hygiene
226. The Commission noted that the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene at its last session, held in June 1971, had endorsed a revised wording of the sub-section dealing with pathogenic microorganisms. The Commission agreed that the text adopted by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene should be included in this standard and in any other standards for processed fruits and vegetables considered by the Commission at the present session.
Labelling
227. The Commission noted that the labelling provisions had been endorsed by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling.
Adoption of Standard for Canned Strawberries at Step 8
228. The Commission adopted the draft standard for Canned Strawberries at Step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards as a recommended Codex standard. The delegations of the following countries were opposed to this decision: Argentina, Italy, Spain, Mexico, India, Netherlands, Poland, Venezuela, Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, Portugal, Yugoslavia and Saudi Arabia. The delegation of France indicated that it had taken no position on the question of the adoption of the standard at Step 8. The Commission noted that the main reason that these delegations were opposed to the adoption of the standard at Step 8 was because many of them considered that the standard should provide for two categories of syrup instead of four, although some of these delegations did have reservations on other aspects of the standard.
229. The Commission had before it the above standard contained in Appendix III to ALINORM 71/20. The rapporteur Mr. L. Beacham (U.S.A.) reviewed the comments of substance which had been made on the standard. The rapporteur informed the Commission that all of these points were matters which had been considered by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables and on which the Committee had come to a conclusion.
Packing Media
230. As in the Standard for Canned Strawberries, a number of countries were also opposed to the provision for four syrup strengths in the present standard.
Food Additives
231. The Commission agreed that the provision on acidifying agents in the standard for Canned Strawberries should also be included in the standard for Canned Plums. As in the case of the standard for Canned Strawberries, some delegates reserved their positions on the use of colour for canned plums. The delegate of Belgium stated that the use of SO2 was permitted in Belgium in the course of operations preceding the canning of yellow plums. This resulted in a residue of SO2 up to a maximum of 10 mg/kg in the final product. As colouring was allowed in the standard for red and purple plums, the delegate of Belgium requested that a new provision be included in this section to permit the presence of SO2 in amounts not exceeding 10 mg/kg for yellow plums only. The Commission decided not to amend the standard as requested by the delegate of Belgium, and the delegate of Belgium reserved Belgium's position. The delegate of Yugoslavia, in addition to reserving Yugoslavia's position on the use of colours, also reserved Yugoslavia's position on the use of artificial flavours.
Weights and Measures
232. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany drew attention to the fact that in the reproduction of the written comments of the Federal Republic of Germany in document ALINORM 71/30, reference should have been made to the ingoing weight of the fruit component instead of to the drained weight. This applied to all the draft standards for canned fruits and vegetables.
Proposal to Adopt the Standard for Canned Plums at Step 8
233. The Commission decided not to adopt the Draft Standard for Canned Plums at Step 8 as a recommended standard by 20 to 17 with 4 abstentions.
234. In view of the Commission's decision not to adopt the Draft Standard for Canned Plums at Step 8 as a Recommended Standard and in view of the large number of changes proposed by governments in the other Step 8 standards for processed fruits and vegetables, the Commission concluded that it should postpone discussion on these standards until a small work group could study the matter. The Chairman appointed for this purpose representatives from the Federal Republic of Germany, Mexico and the U.S.A.
235. In accordance with the recommendations of this work group, the Commission decided that these draft standards should not be considered for advancement to Step 9 at this session of the Commission and that the procedure given below should be followed with respect to the draft standards for canned plums, raspberries, fruit cocktail, mushrooms, and asparagus:
The draft standards should be returned to the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and vegetables for consideration at Step 7.
The Commission urgently requested that governments who have not already done so make written new submission not later than 31 December, 1971, to the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables, giving data and information to support their proposed changes in these standards.
The Committee should examine the government comments at Step 8 (ALINORM 71/30 and Addenda), as well as those received in response to sub-paragraph (2) above.
The Committee should report fully to the Ninth Session of the Commission on the outcome of its reconsideration and, after adopting such changes as it decides to be desirable, should recommend whether or not it considers the standards ready for advancement to Step 9.
The Commission noted that, in the absence of such written submissions or the attendance of representatives at the Committee's next meeting, the Committee may not be able to give proper consideration to these proposals which relate to technical provisions of the standards.
236. The delegate of China reserved his position on the Commission's decision not to proceed with a consideration of the standards for Canned Mushrooms and Asparagus. He emphasized that his delegation expressed its deep regret concerning this decision that the standards had not been considered during the session, as in his opinion the questions relating to canned fruit standards had no bearing at all on the standards for canned vegetables.
237. The Commission had before it ALINORM 71/29 which contained the proposed amendments to the Standard for Canned Peaches. These were as follows:
In Section 1.3 - Colour Type of the standard for canned peaches, a new subsection would be added which would become sub-section 1.3.4 and would read as follows:
“1.3.4 Green - varietal types in which the predominant colour ranges from pale green to green when fully ripe.”
In Section 6.1.2 (a) of the labelling section of the standard the colour type “green” should be added so that the text would read as follows:
“6.1.2(a) the colour type: “yellow”, “white”, “red” or “green” as appropriate.”
238. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables that Steps 6, 7 and 8 should be omitted and adopted these amendments at step 8 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
239. The Commission further decided to advance to Step 3 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards the proposed amendment to Section 3 Food Additives where the following provision was added to the text:
| “Antioxidant | Maximum level of use |
| Ascorbic acid | Not limited” |
240. The delegate of Australia drew the attention of the Commission to the necessity for a labelling declaration for this provision.
241. The Commission had before it ALINORM 71/29 which contained a proposal to amend the definition of “excessive trim” in sub-section 2.2.1.3 of the Recommended International Standard for Canned Pineapple. The proposed amendment was as follows:
“2.2.1.3 - Excessive Trim - (considered a defect only in the styles of Whole, sliced including Spiral Sliced, Half Sliced, Quarter Sliced and Spear). A unit trimmed to the extent that its normal shape and conformation is destroyed and detracts from the appearance of such unit. Trims will be considered “excessive” if the portion trimmed away exceeds five percent of the apparent physical bulk of the perfectly formed unit and if such trimming destroys the normal circular shape of the outer or inner edge of the unit.”
242. The Commission decided to advance this amendment to Step 3 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
243. The Commission considered the proposed amendment to Section 3.2 - Firming Agents of the Recommended International Standard for Canned Tomatoes which read as follows:
| “3.2 Firming Agents | Maximum Level of Use | |
| Calcium chloride | singly or in combination | 0.080% total calcium ion content in the styles “diced”, “sliced” and “wedges”: 0.045% total calcium ion content in the styles “whole”, “whole and pieces” and “pieces” |
| Calcium sulphate | ||
| Calcium citrate | ||
| Mono-calcium phosphate | ||
| (Others to be listed in the light of government comments to be obtained in due course at Step 3) | ||
244. The Commission decided to advance the amendment to Step 3 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards.
245. The delegate of the U.S.A. informed the Commission that the International Olive oil Council had proposed that arrangements be made with the Codex Alimentarius Commission for the standard for table olives to be elaborated by Joint Codex/IOOC meetings at the headquarters of the Council in Madrid. The delegate of the U.S.A. advised the Commission that as Chairman of the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables the government of the U.S.A. had no objection to this proposal although the members of the Codex Committee had not discussed this matter. The representative of the IOOC informed the Commission that the IOOC fully agreed that the standard for table olives should be elaborated in accordance with the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-Wide Codex Standards and that full meeting facilities would be arranged in consultation with the Secretariat of the Commission. The Commission was informed that there was no constitutional difficulty concerning the holding of joint meetings such as the one proposed for table olives. The delegates of Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany stated that they objected in principle to the standard for table olives being elaborated other than by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables in its regular sessions. Other delegates stated a preference for the proposed joint meetings as these would provide an opportunity for a fuller consideration of the standard by all interested delegations and would also facilitate the participation of a number of developing countries in this work. The Commission expressed the hope that the matter would be settled rapidly and approved the holding of Joint meetings with the IOOC on an ad hoc basis, subject to review by the Executive Committee and subject to suitable facilities being made available and the standard following the normal steps of procedure of the Commission. The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany was not in favour of this course. The Secretariat was requested to arrange in consultation with the IOOC for the first joint meeting to either immediately precede or follow the next session of the ECE/Codex Group of Experts on Quick-Frozen Foods. The Commission noted that the proposed draft standard as amended at a meeting of the IOOC Group of Experts in the Spring of 1971 would be sent to governments for comment prior to re-examination by the joint meeting.
246. The Commission confirmed under Rule IX.10 that the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables should continue to be under the chairmanship of the Government of the United States of America.
