INTRODUCTION
1. The 11^th Session of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables was held in Mexico City from 8 to 12 September 2003 at the kind invitation of the Government of Mexico. The Chairman of the Committee, CP Miguel Aguilar Romo, appointed Lic. Carlos R. Berzunza Sánchez, Director of International Standardization, Secretary of Economy, to chair the Session on his behalf. The Session was attended by delegates from 28 Member countries and observers from 5 international organizations. The list of participants is attached as Appendix I.
OPENING OF THE SESSION
2. Lic. Juan Antonio García Villa, Under-Secretary for Standards, Foreign Investment and International Commercial Practices, opened the Session on behalf of the Secretary of Economy, His Excellency Mr. Fernando Canales Clariond. Mr. Norman Bellino, FAO Representative in Mexico and Dr. Joaquín Molina, WHO/PAHO Representative in Mexico ad interim, also addressed the Committee.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (Agenda Item 1)¹
3. The Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda as its Agenda for the Session with the inclusion of the following matters under Agenda Item 6 – Other Business and Future Work:
- proposal for a Standard Layout for Codex Standards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CRD 1); and,
- bioterrorism in the framework of the work carried out by the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.
4. The Committee noted that the proposal submitted by the European Community for the revision of Codex Standards for Avocados and Pineapples (CX/FFV 03/12) was already scheduled for discussion under Agenda Item 5 – Amendments to the Priority List for the Standardization of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.
MATTERS OF INTEREST TO THE COMMITTEE ARISING FROM THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION AND OTHER CODEX COMMITTEES (Agenda Item 2a)²
5. The Committee acknowledged that the document was presented for information only and that no action needed to be taken on the matters contained therein. In this regard, the Committee was informed that the 26^th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Rome, July 2003) adopted draft revised provisions: Section 3 – Provisions concerning Sizing and Section 6.2.4 – Commercial Identification for inclusion in the Codex Standards for Limes, Pummelos and Grapefruits as well as draft Codex Standards for Sweet Cassava and Pitahayas at Step 8. The Commission also adopted the proposed draft Codex Standard for Table Grapes at Step 5 and approved the elaboration of a Codex Standard for Rambutan as new work for the Committee.
6. The Committee was also informed that the Codex Committee on Food Labelling had endorsed labelling provisions in a number of Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables namely: Limes, Pummelos, Grapefruits, Sweet Cassava, Pitahayas and the draft Codex Standard for Oranges.
7. The Committee noted that the Commission had adopted the draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables and the draft Guidelines for Food Import Control Systems at Step 8. It further noted that some of the measures to facilitate consensus adopted by the Commission were already being implemented by the Committee.³
MATTERS OF INTEREST RELATED TO THE STANDARDIZATION OF FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES ARISING FROM OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (Agenda Item 2b)⁴
Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
8. The Representative of the OECD Scheme for the Application of International Standards for Fruits and Vegetables gave a summary account of the activities of the Scheme subsequent to the last Session of the Committee. She explained that explanatory brochures published by the Scheme interpreted OECD standards. In addition, she clarified that the standards mentioned in Part I of CX/FFV 03/3 were OECD standards harmonized with the corresponding UN/ECE standards.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE)
9. The Delegation of the United Kingdom, on behalf of the UN/ECE Secretariat, informed the Committee on the main outcome of the discussions at the 58^th Session of the Working Party on Agricultural Quality Standards (Geneva, October 2002) and the 49^th Session of the Specialized Section on Standardization of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (Geneva, June 2003).
UN/ECE STANDARDS FOR FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES (Agenda Item 2c)⁵
10. The Committee noted that the UN/ECE standards contained in the document were made available as references for the development of corresponding Codex standards as directed by the Executive Committee.⁶ The Committee agreed that the UN/ECE standards contained in CX/FFV 03/4 would be taken into account when discussing the relevant agenda items along with the amendments made at the 49^th Session of the Specialized Section on Standardization of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables as contained in the Annex to CX/FFV 03/3.
CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT CODEX STANDARDS AT STEP 7
DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR ORANGES (Agenda Item 3a)⁷
11. The 10^th Session of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables retained the draft Codex Standard for Oranges at Step 7 in recognition of the important progress made on the major sections of the draft Standard. This decision was taken on the understanding that no additional comments would be requested on the approved sections so that the next Committee’s Session would restrict its discussions to the finalization of Section 2.1.3 on Maturity Requirements.⁸
12. In compliance with this decision, the Committee did not hold any discussion on the draft Codex Standard for Oranges.
DRAFT SECTION 2.1.3 – MATURITY REQUIREMENTS (draft Codex Standard for Oranges) (Agenda Item 3b)⁹
13. The 10^th Session of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables agreed that a drafting group led by the United Kingdom would prepare a revised version of Section 2.1.3 based on the discussion held at that Session and written comments submitted for circulation, comments at Step 6 and further consideration at its next meeting.¹⁰
14. A number of delegations suggested the inclusion of maturity parameters other than colouring and minimum juice content (i.e. sugar content, acid content, sugar/acid ratio, etc.). They pointed out that the colour of the fruit was not related to its maturity condition. Other delegations noted that studies on maturity criteria were underway but these were not yet complete. In this regard, some studies indicated that maturity parameters like total soluble solids (TSS) content might vary in the same variety from one region to the other and even in the same country and that for the time being the minimum juice content was the most reliable indicator of the maturity of the fruit. These delegations proposed to adopt the proposal of the drafting group (Annex to CX/FFV 03/5) and to continue to work on other maturity criteria and their possible combinations with a view to revising the Standard for Oranges to include other maturity indicators in the Standard.
15. The Delegation of India, supported by a number of delegations, indicated that the minimum juice requirement of 45% for green-coloured oranges was too high and that it should be kept at 35% as for other varieties. It was noted that in the Asian region there were some fully mature green skinned varieties that had a juice content much lower than 45%. It was further noted that fixing the minimum juice content at 45% for oranges with more than one fifth green colour might create technical obstacles to trade. The apparent contradiction between “varieties” and “fruits” when allocating minimum juice content for green-coloured oranges was also noted.
16. In view of the above discussion, the Committee agreed to amend the proposal of the drafting group by establishing two new categories for varieties with more than one-fifth green colour to differentiate between varieties satisfying a minimum juice content of 45% or 33%. The Committee further agreed that the minimum juice content of 33% applied only to varieties Mosambi, Sathgudi and Pacitan. In addition, the references to Nagpur, Khasi, Coorg and Garut were removed as they belonged to Citrus reticulata species. Similarly, the reference to “light” green colour in the last paragraph of Section 2.2.1 Colouring was deleted to refer to only to “green colour”.
Status of the draft Codex Standard for Oranges and its draft Section 2.1.3 on Maturity Requirements
17. The Committee agreed to replace the current Sections 2.1.2 (Colouring) and 2.1.3 (Maturity Requirements) of the draft Codex Standard for Oranges with the amended proposal of the drafting group.
18. The Committee agreed to forward the draft Codex Standard for Oranges to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for final adoption at Step 8.
DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR TABLE GRAPES (Agenda Item 3c)¹¹
19. The 10^th Session of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables agreed to forward the proposed draft Codex Standard for Table Grapes to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for preliminary adoption at Step 5 while entrusting the elaboration of maturity requirements (Section 2.1.1) and the establishment of a list of small-berry varieties (Section 3.1 – Annex) to a drafting group led by Chile.¹²
20. The Commission adopted the proposed draft Codex Standard for Table Grapes at Step 5, which was subsequently circulated for comments at Step 6. In discussing the draft Standard at Step 7, the Committee agreed on the following changes:
Section 2.2.2 – Class I
21. The Committee aligned the third paragraph with the UN/ECE Standard for Table Grapes. In addition, it agreed to refer to “granos de uvas” in the Spanish version. Consequently, the reference to “bayas” was deleted throughout the text. It was noted that this decision was in line with the UN/ECE Standard for Table Grapes which referred to “grains” in the French version.
Section 2.2.3 – Class II
22. The Committee aligned the first sentence of the third paragraph with the UN/ECE Standard for Table Grapes.
23. The Committee had an exchange of views on the need to include provisions for the retention of the bloom through the quality classes. The delegations in favour of this approach indicated that the presence of the bloom was a quality parameter of the freshness of the fruit and thus provisions in this respect should be included in the three quality classes. They pointed out that the term “where possible” proposed for Class II was less stringent than “as far as possible” used in Class I which allowed for a gradually loosing of the bloom while keeping the quality of the produce.
24. Other delegations did not favour this approach as quality classes implied a gradation of the produce quality which in the case of the presence of the bloom was reflected by the absence of related provisions in Class II. These delegations also noted the practical difficulties in the application of the term “where possible” when performing the quality control. It was further noted that the last Session of the Committee had deleted the requirement related to the bloom in Class II.¹³ In view of this, the Committee decided to leave the second sentence of the third paragraph unchanged.
25. The Delegation of Thailand questioned the allowance for “slight bruising” as this envisaged a mechanical damage leading to loss of quality that should not be permitted in the Standard. The Committee noted that this requirement was included in order to prevent further loss of quality due to this defect and therefore, it decided to retain this provision in the Standard.
Section 3.1 – Minimum Bunch Weight
26. The Committee had a discussion on the opportunity to delete the specific references to varieties marked as “late harvest grapes” in footnote two in order to cover similar varieties that might be marketed in the future. In this regard, the Committee noted that the UN/ECE Standard for Table Grapes kept this provision in trial period as this type of table grapes were relatively new on the market and the varieties falling under this category were still very few. The Committee felt that more work needed to be done before including provisions for “late harvest grapes” in the Standard and therefore, it decided to delete footnote two on the understanding that the matter might be consider sometime in the future in light of the developments in the UN/ECE Standard. As a result, Section 6.2.4 – Commercial Identification was amended accordingly.
Section 5.2 - Packaging
27. The Delegation of Australia queried the need for “Extra” class bunches to be packed in one single layer as the way of packing was not relevant if the quality of table grapes met the requirements of the class. The Committee noted that this provision did not prevent the use of several packages or units as long as the bunches were distributed in single layers. In view of this, the Committee decided to leave the Section unchanged.
Section 5.2.1 – Description of Containers
28. The Committee agreed to remove the square brackets around the provisions allowing for a fragment of vine shoot on the stem of the bunch while clarifying that this could be done without prejudice to the applicable plant protection rules. It was noted that the word “applicable” intended to cover both importing and transiting countries regulations in this respect. The Committee further agreed to place this requirement in a footnote to the last paragraph of the Section.
Section 8 – Hygiene
29. The Committee amended Section 8.1 to include a reference to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables and agreed that this amendment should apply across Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables.
Status of the draft Codex Standard for Table Grapes
30. In recognition of the important agreement reached on the major sections of the draft Standard and in consideration of the ongoing work on maturity requirements and berry sizes, the Committee agreed to retain the draft Codex Standard for Table Grapes at Step 7 (see Appendix III) pending finalization of Section 2.1.1 concerning maturity requirements and the Annex on small-berry varieties in Section 3.1 so that a complete text could be forwarded to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for final adoption at Step 8. This decision was taken with the understanding that additional comments would not be requested on the agreed sections so that the next Session of the Committee could focus its discussion on the finalization of maturity requirements and berry sizes (see para. 37).
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX STANDARDS
AND RELATED TEXTS AT STEP 4
PROPOSED DRAFT SECTION 2.1.1 – MATURITY REQUIREMENTS AND PROPOSED DRAFT ANNEX – MINIMUM SOLUBLE SOLIDS AND THRESHOLD SOLUBLE SOLIDS TO DETERMINE MATURITY REQUIREMENTS IN TABLE GRAPES (draft Codex Standard for Table Grapes) (Agenda Item 4a)¹⁴
31. The 10^th Session of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables had an extensive discussion on minimum requirements related to bunches of grapes and minimum sugar/acid ratio figures. The relationship of this matter to the Annex of the Standard on Minimum Soluble Solids and Threshold Soluble Solids to determine Maturity in Table Grapes was also considered. In view of this, the Committee placed the entire Section 2.1.1 and the Annex in square brackets pending the elaboration of a revised Section 2.1.1/Annex. In doing so, the Committee agreed to entrust the revision of maturity requirements to a drafting group under the direction of Chile.
32. At the same Session, when discussing minimum bunch weight for table grapes, the Committee rearranged the table in Section 3.1 by referring to “All varieties except Small-berry varieties listed in the Annex” and “Small-berry varieties listed in the Annex” and agreed that the drafting group established to examine maturity requirements would also elaborate an exhaustive list of small-berry varieties account being taken of the work carried out in the UN/ECE in this regard. As a result of this decision, the Committee indicated that the list of small-berry varieties was “under development”.¹⁵
33. In discussing the proposed draft Section 2.1.1 and the Annex on berry size, the Committee agreed on the following:
Section 2.1.1 (Maturity Requirements)
34. The Committee agreed to delete the square brackets around the first and second paragraph of the Section. In addition, it agreed to insert a new paragraph related to the development and condition of the table grapes for consistency with other Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables. The Committee also amended the Spanish text to refer to “madurez” instead of “maduración” as this was the right term to indicate that the fruit met the maturity parameters of the Standard.
35. The Committee recognized that more work was still necessary to determine maturity criteria and their respective values for table grapes. It therefore agreed to retain the square brackets around the third paragraph of the Section.
Section 3.1 (Annex on Small-berry varieties)
36. The Committee had an exchange of views on a list of small-berry varieties defined in the UN/ECE Standard for Table Grapes as contained in the Annex of document CX/FFV 03/3-Part II. The Committee agreed on a number of editorial changes but recognized that further work was required to agree on the inclusion of other varieties and to determine the correspondence between the variety and its synonyms.
Status of the Proposed Draft Section 2.1.1 (Maturity Requirements) and proposed draft Annex on Small-berry Varieties (Section 3.1) (draft Codex Standard for Table Grapes)
37. The Committee agreed to reconvene the drafting group under the direction of Chile with the assistance of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, France, Greece, India, Italy, South Africa, the United States of America and the European Commission to develop maturity requirements for small and large berry varieties and a list of small-berry varieties of table grapes. It was noted that drafting groups were open to all Codex member countries and interested international organizations in observer status with Codex. The Committee also recommended that the UN/ECE list of small-berry varieties contained in the Annex of CX/FFV 03/3-Part II be taken as a basis for the development of a similar list by the drafting group. The proposal of the drafting group would be then circulated for comments at Step 3 and consideration by the next Session of the Committee.
PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR TOMATOES (Agenda Item 4b)¹⁶
38. The 10^th Session of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables agreed to append the proposed draft Codex Standard for Tomatoes to the report of its Session for circulation, additional comments at Step 3 and further consideration at its next Session.¹⁷ The Committee discussed the proposed draft Codex Standard for Tomatoes at Step 4 and agreed on the following amendments:
Section 1 - Definition of Produce
39. The Committee agreed that throughout the Spanish text, reference should be made to tomatoes “Asurcados” instead of “Surcados”.
Section 2.1 – Minimum Requirements
40. The Committee had a discussion on the inclusion of provisions for firmness under this Section. It noted that a gradation of this attribute through the quality classes was a more appropriate way to address this issue instead of having an absolute value (i.e. “firm”) under this Section.
Section 2.2.1 – “Extra” Class
41. The Committee aligned the second sentence with the standardized language applied across Codex Standards for fresh fruits and vegetables.
42. The Committee had an exchange of views on the need to include a reference to uniformity in size in “Extra” Class and Class I as Sections 3 – Sizing and 6.1 – Uniformity already assured uniformity of size in the produce. However, the Committee agreed to make an additional reference to ensure that produce classified under these two quality classes should comply with this requirement. In view of this, consequential amendment was made to Class I.
43. In addition, the Committee noted that the term “greenback” referred to a particular defect not related to the greenish colour remaining on the upper part of the fruit which was characteristic of certain varieties of tomatoes. It was also pointed out that provision for colouring was covered by the first paragraph of this Section. In view of this, the Committee retained this provision for “Extra” Class as written in the second paragraph.
Section 2.2.2 – Class I
44. The Delegation of India proposed to delete the reference to “development” from the first indent as it was a defect not appropriate to Class I and a parameter difficult to measure which might create a technical barrier to trade. The Committee noted that: i) good development was important for the internal quality of tomatoes; ii) shape was one of the factors affected by development; and, iii) development’s defects were also addressed in Class II. In view of this, the Committee retained this requirement in Class I. The Delegation of India expressed its reservation on this decision.
45. The Committee agreed on the following changes in the indents for “ribbed” tomatoes: the third indent was aligned with the UN/ECE Standard for Tomatoes; the fifth indent was deleted as already covered by the general provisions for slight skin defects; and, the first part of the last indent was deleted as covered by the third indent (small umbilicus).
Section 2.2.3 – Class II
46. The Committee deleted the term “sensorial” as tomatoes in all classes should conform to the minimum requirements specified in Section 2.1 and for consistency with other Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables. In addition, the third general indent and the third indent for “ribbed” tomatoes were aligned with the UN/ECE Standard for Tomatoes.
Section 3 – Provisions concerning sizing
47. The Committee deleted the two footnotes in the table as not applicable. The Delegation of Indonesia, supported by a number of delegations, proposed the inclusion of additional sizing codes for “cherry” tomatoes. Some delegations expressed concern on the inclusion of “cherry” tomatoes in the same sizing table to prevent unfair trade practices. In view of this, the Committee agreed to include a separate size scale for “cherry” tomatoes and consequently, a minimum size of 15 mm for “cherry” tomatoes was introduced in the second paragraph of the Section. The Delegation of Switzerland expressed its reservation on this decision.
48. In view of time constraints, the Committee was unable consider in detail the sizing provisions and therefore, it agreed to place the entire Section 3 in square brackets for further consideration at its next Session.
Section 4 – Provisions concerning colour
49. The Committee had an extensive discussion on the need to have colouring provisions in the Standard. Some delegations were of the opinion that these provisions were not necessary and could raise interpretation problems when performing the quality inspection and certification of the produce. They suggested to harmonise this Section with the OECD brochure for tomatoes in case the Committee decided to include colouring provisions in the Standard. The Delegation of the United States expressed its reservation in this regard. Others delegations were in favour of retaining the Section as colour was an important qualifier for trading tomatoes and suggested to rearrange the colours sequence to reflect the natural colour development while improving the wording of the text.
50. The Committee noted that no Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables contained a Section on Colour and that similar colouring provisions for varieties of pitahayas had been removed from the Codex Standard for Pitahayas.
51. The Committee could not reach consensus on the removal of this Section and therefore, it decided to place the entire Section 4 in square brackets for further consideration at its next Session.
Section 5.1.3 – Class II
52. The Committee aligned the Section with the UN/ECE Standard for Tomatoes.
Section 5.2 – Size tolerances
53. The Committee placed the entire section in square brackets pending the revision of the Section on sizing.
Section 6.2 - Packaging
54. The Committee noted that the use of the word “tropical” in the title of the Recommended International Code of Practice for Packaging and Transport of Tropical Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 44-1995) should be removed as the document applied across fresh fruits and vegetables regardless of the growing region. The Committee agreed to request the Codex Alimentarius Commission to amend the Code by deleting the word “tropical” throughout in order to make it consistent with the packaging and transport of all fresh fruits and vegetables.
Section 7 – Marking or Labelling
55. The Committee noted that labelling of organically produced foods should be done in accordance with the Codex Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods (CAC/GL 32-1999, Rev. 1-2001). Consequently, the Committee did not take any action on the inclusion of labelling requirements for organic produce in the Standard.
Status of the proposed draft Codex Standard for Tomatoes
56. The Committee forwarded the proposed draft Codex Standard for Tomatoes (see Appendix IV) to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for preliminary adoption at Step 5.
PROPOSED DRAFT STANDARD FOR APPLES (Agenda Item 4c)¹⁸
57. The 10^th Session of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables agreed to return the proposed draft Codex Standard for Apples to Step 2 for redrafting by drafting group under the direction of the United States, circulation for comments at Step 3 and further consideration at the present Session.¹⁹
58. The Committee discussed the proposed draft Codex Standard for Apples at Step 4 as follows:
General Considerations
59. Some delegations expressed the view that the Standard should be reconsidered against the recent decision of the Commission to favour standards for broad application across a range of commodities. They noted that the current draft was overly prescriptive resulting in a Standard of difficult application in international trade and thus, having the potential to establish technical barriers to trade. These delegations were of the opinion that quality provisions should be set and agreed to by commercial partners in response to market forces and that the question of what constituted essential quality provisions for Codex purposes needed further consideration. Other delegations stated that the purpose of this meeting was precisely to draft standards that represented measures being the least trade restrictive taking into account legitimate objectives such as consumer protection and fair trade practices.
60. A number of delegations also stated that the reading of the text was difficult due to the excessive details contained in the body as well as in the Annex being preferable to simplify the text by having all the necessary provisions included in the body of the document as in other Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables.
61. The Committee noted that main concerns arising on the quality and sizing provisions and had a discussion on the need to have sizing provisions in the Standard. Some delegations favoured the exclusion of sizing provisions due to the difficulties in setting uniform provisions considering the wide range of apple varieties, the characteristics of the production regions in the world, and the requirements of specific markets. They considered that size should not be related to quality and that there should be no minimum size. Other delegations did not favour this position and deemed important to have sizing provisions in the Standard to satisfy the legitimate expectation of consumers for quality products. As a result, the Committee agreed to have a Section on Sizing in the Standard.
Specific Considerations
Section 2.1 Minimum Requirements
62. The Committee had an extensive discussion on the inclusion of “firm” as a minimum requirement for apples. The Delegation of India, supported by other delegations, considered that this attribute was important to ensure the minimum quality of imported apples, while other delegations felt that this requirement was adequately covered by “sound” while noting that the degree of firmness might vary according to varieties, time and condition of storage, among other factors. In this regard, it was noted that the point of application of the Standard played a fundamental role in assuring that the fruit could comply with this requirement and therefore, it requested clarification in this respect.
63. The Codex Secretariat informed the Committee that Codex standards allowed for “free distribution” of the product on the territory of the importing country, and therefore they applied both to the point of export or import and to further distribution and sale. In any case, the application of the standard laid with the importing country. In this connection, the footnote applying across Codex standards to fresh fruits and vegetables (Section 1 – Definition of Produce) was included to take on board this matter by stating that “Governments, when indicating the acceptance of a Codex Standard for (…) should notify the Commission which provisions of the Standard would be accepted for application at the point of import, and which provisions would be accepted for application at the point of export.”
64. The Committee also had an exchange of views on other minimum requirements such as allowance for damage due to high/low temperature, the inclusion of “disease”, watercore, etc. In response to a request to provide clarification on the terms “pest” and “disease”, the Committee noted that in Codex there were no definitions to differentiate between the two terms. With regard to “watercore”, the Committee discussed whether it affected the quality of apples or it could be used as a quality parameter; to which extend its tolerance could be accepted; and, allowance for “watercore” in some varieties e.g. Fuji and its mutants. In footnote two, the Delegation of India requested the inclusion of Jonathan variety in addition to Fuji variety.
65. In view of the time constraints, the Committee suspended the consideration of the proposed draft Codex Standard for Apples. In doing so, it agreed to reconvene the drafting group to revise the text for further consideration at its next meeting. The Committee noted that there might be a need for the drafting group to meet physically in order to facilitate the discussion of the text. In this regard, the Codex Secretariat referred to the recommendation of the last Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission concerning the establishment of electronic and/or physically working groups which should be ad hoc, open to all members, take account the problems of developing countries participation and only be established where there was consensus in the Committee to do so and other strategies had been considered.²⁰
Status of the proposed draft Codex Standard for Apples
66. The Committee decided to reconvene the drafting group in order to revise the proposed draft Codex Standard for Apples on the basis of the written comments submitted at the present Session and the above discussion, as well as in light of the developments in the UN/ECE Standard for Apples for circulation, additional comments at Step 3 and further consideration at its 12^th Session. The Drafting Group would be led by the United States of America, with the assistance of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, India, Italy, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom and the European Commission.
PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX STANDARD FOR RAMBUTAN (Agenda Item 4d)²¹
67. The 10^th Session of the Codex Committee for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables agreed that Thailand would elaborate a proposed draft Codex Standard for Rambutan, subject to approval as new work by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Commission approved the elaboration of a proposed draft Codex Standard for Rambutan as new work to be undertaken by the Committee.²²
68. The Committee discussed the proposed draft Codex Standard for Rambutan at Step 4 as follows:
Section 2.1 – Minimum Requirements
69. The Committee noted that blemishes were defects related to skin and spinterns which were difficult to detect because of the intense red, red-orange colour of mature rambutans. In view of this, the Committee deleted this provision from the Standard.
Section 2.2.2 – Class I; Section 2.2.3 – Class II
70. The Committee aligned the text of the two Sections with the standardized language applied across Codex Standards for fresh fruits and vegetables.
71. Some delegations considered that the maximum of 20% allowance for slight defects in Class II were too high to enable the product to be internationally marketed. Other delegations were of the opinion that 20% was adequate as this level of defects did not affect the flesh of the fruit and the spinterns were very perishable.
72. The Committee could not reach a consensus on this matter and therefore, it agreed to place the level of 20% in square brackets for further consideration at its next Session.
Section 3 – Provision Concerning Sizing
73. The Committee discussed this Section on the basis of a proposal presented by the Delegation of Thailand (CRD 10). It considered that there was a need to determine a minimum size for rambutans presented both in single or bunches. However, the Committee was unable consider in detail the sizing provisions and therefore, it agreed to place the two tables in square brackets for further consideration at its next Session.
Section 4.2 – Size Tolerances
74. Several delegations were of the opinion that different size tolerances for rambutans presented as single fruit and in bunches were not necessary as sizing requirements were rather strict, while other delegations considered that the presentation in bunches justified this difference. The Committee could not reach consensus and therefore, it decided to place the provision for rambutans presented in bunches in square brackets for further consideration at its next Session.
Section 5.2 – Packaging
75. The Committee aligned the text of the Section with the standardized language applied across Codex Standards for fresh fruits and vegetables.
Section 5.3.1 – Individually
76. In recognizing the need to cover different commercial practices, the Committee changed “cut” with “detached” with the understanding that its meaning was more inclusive.
Section 5.3.2 – In Bunches
77. The Committee could not reach consensus to amend the first sentence to specify that “each cluster should have at least three attached fruits” and therefore, it decided to place the sentence in square brackets for further consideration at its next Session.
78. The Committee agreed that the tolerance for detached fruits should be applied at all levels of distribution and amended the second sentence accordingly.
Section 6.2.4 – Commercial Identification
79. In considering that information on net weight was very useful for the consumers, the Committee deleted the term “(optional)”.
Status of the proposed draft Codex Standard for Rambutan
80. The Committee agreed to return the proposed draft Codex Standard for Rambutan (see Appendix V) to Step 3 for circulation and comments. It further agreed that a drafting group led by Thailand, with the assistance Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and the United States of America would revise the proposed draft Standard on the basis of the written comments submitted at the current meeting as well as additional comments requested at Step 3. The revised proposed draft Codex Standard for Rambutan would be considered at the 12^th Session of the Committee.
PROPOSED DRAFT CODEX GUIDELINES FOR THE QUALITY CONTROL OF FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES (Agenda Item 4e) ²³
81. The 10^th Session of the CCFFV decided to return the proposed draft Codex Guidelines for the Quality Control of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables to Step 2 for redrafting by Canada on the basis of written comments submitted at the Session, for circulation and further discussion at the this meeting.²⁴
82. The Committee welcomed the development of the Guidelines as a useful tool for the quality control of fresh fruits and vegetables. It noted that the Guidelines were drafted in line with relevant texts developed by the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems and took into consideration other relevant texts of the UN/ECE and the Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It also noted that the sampling plans were based on those developed by the International Standardization Organization and the Certificate for Conformity was adapted from the UN/ECE export certificate to include import aspects.
83. Some delegations were of the view that the document should be more comprehensive and provide guidance for producers to comply with international standards, while others considered that the document should focus on aspects of inspection and certification only.
84. The Committee noted the comments on the title and first definitions of the Guidelines as follows:
- the term “quality control” and “quality inspector” should be modified to better reflect that inspection verify/assess conformity with the standards;
- the definition of “Quality inspector” should be amended to explain that inspectors are staff of an official/officially recognized Inspection and Certification Body;
- the definition of “Certification” should reflect that the Guidelines refer to product control and not to certification of control system.
85. The Committee decided to suspend the discussion on the proposed draft Codex Guidelines for the Quality Control of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables and agreed to convene a drafting group to revise the text for further consideration at its next meeting.
Status of the proposed draft Codex guidelines for the quality control of fresh fruits and vegetables
86. The Committee agreed to return the proposed draft Guidelines for the Quality Control of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables to Step 2. It further agreed that a drafting group led by Canada, with the assistance Australia, South Africa, the United States of America and the European Commission would revise the Code on the basis of the written comments submitted and the discussion at the current Session for circulation, comments and further discussion at its next Session.
PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE PRIORITY LIST FOR THE STANDARDIZATION OF FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES (Agenda Item 5)²⁵
87. The Committee considered proposals for amendments to the Priority List on the basis of the comments submitted as well as those arising from the floor. The Delegation of Italy, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union present at the Session introduced a proposal for the revision of the Codex Standards for Avocados and Pineapples. He informed the Committee that, recent developments in international trade for avocados such as the marketing of small-sized Hass varieties, fair marketing practices, divergences in international standards, etc. justified the revision of the Codex Standard for Avocados.
88. In addition, he repeated the request made at the previous Session that the Committee took up the revision of the Codex Standard for Pineapples as new work for its next Session in view of new packing and presentation practices (pineapples sold with the stem) and alignment with other international standards particularly in regard to minimum requirements, quality classes and sizing provisions. This request was supported by the Delegation of South Africa who also requested the standardization of yam as this was a very important produce for South Africa and the African region.
89. A number of delegations drew the attention to the heavy workload of the Committee and that priority should be given to those items already scheduled for discussion at its next Session. The Committee noted that additions of new items to the Priority List did not necessarily mean that the produce would be considered at the next Session of the Committee.
90. The Committee agreed to include a revision of the Codex Standard for Avocados in the Priority List (see Appendix VI). However, it did not agreed to request the revision of the Codex Standard for Pineapples as new work to be undertaken by the 12^th Session of the Committee. Instead, the Committee agreed on a priority order of discussion at its next Session for those Standards and related texts at early Steps of the Procedure (Step 4) taking into account its importance in international trade as follows:
i) Proposed draft Section 2.1.1 (Maturity Requirements) proposed draft Annex on small-berry varieties (Section 3.1) of Table Grapes;
ii) Proposed draft Codex Standard for Apples;
iii) Proposed draft Guidelines for the Quality Control of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables; and,
iv) Proposed draft Codex Standard for Rambutan.
OTHER BUSINESS AND FUTURE WORK (Agenda Item 6)
Standard Layout for Codex Standards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables²⁶
91. The Committee welcomed the development of a Standard Layout for Codex Standards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables which would help to ensure a consistent approach as regards format, terminology and provisions where appropriate. The Standard Layout would also help to keep consistency across the wording of different versions (i.e. French, Spanish) of the Codex standards for fresh fruits and vegetables. It was pointed that the Standard Layout should ensure that the standards expressed essential quality provisions so that they were not more restrictive than necessary to avoid product development and innovation. It was expressed that the Standard Layout should serve as a guide that would in no way prevent the input of experts participating in the work of the Committee. In addition, it was noted that the issue of structure and format of commodity standards needed to be examined more broadly within Codex to ensure that there was broad consistency across all Codex standards.
92. The Committee agreed on the need to have a Standard Layout for Codex Standards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. The Codex Secretariat informed the Committee that if the Standard Layout was approved by the Committee, it should be forwarded to the Codex Committee on General Principles for endorsement and to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption and inclusion in the Procedural Manual. The Committee further agreed to append the proposal for a Standard Layout for Codex Standards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables to the report of its Session for circulation, comments and consideration at its next Session (see Appendix VII).
Bio-terrorism in the Framework of Work of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
93. Some delegations expressed concerns on the possible effects on the international trade of fresh fruits and vegetables that could derive from the entry in force of the legislations for preparedness and response to bio-terrorism. Other delegations stated that they could not intervene in the discussion as they did have neither the mandate nor the necessary information. The Committee noted that information on relevant activities carried out by FAO and WHO could be presented at the next Session of the Committee by the Codex Secretariat.
DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT SESSION (Agenda Item 7)
94. The Committee was informed that the 12^th Session of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables was tentatively scheduled to be held in Mexico during the first semester of 2005. The exact date and venue would be decided between the Mexican and Codex Secretariats.

¹ CX/FFV 03/1

² CX/FFV 03/2

³ ALINORM 03/41-App. III

⁴ CX/FFV 03/3

⁵ CX/FFV 03/4

⁶ ALINORM 97/3, para. 15

⁷ ALINORM 03/35-App.V

⁸ ALINORM 03/35, para. 59

⁹ CX/FFV 03/5 and comments submitted from Mexico and the European Community (CX/FFV 03/5-Add.1); Australia (CRD 5); Philippines (CRD 6); India (CRD 7); Indonesia (CRD 8); and, Malaysia (CRD 9)

¹⁰ ALINORM 03/35, para. 51

¹¹ ALINORM 03/35-App.VI; CL 2003/21-FFV; CX/FFV 03/3; CX/FFV 03/4 and comments submitted from European Community (CX/FFV 03/6); Mexico (CRD 3); Australia (CRD 5); India (CRD 7); and, Indonesia (CRD 8)

¹² ALINORM 03/35, paras. 101-103

¹³ ALINORM 03/35 para. 89

¹⁴ CX/FFV 03/7; CX/FFV 03/3; CX/FFV 03/4 and comments submitted from Greece and USA (CX/FFV 03/7-Add.1); Australia (CRD 5); and, India (CRD 7)

¹⁵ ALINORM 03/35 paras. 82-83 and 93.

¹⁶ ALINORM 03/35-App. VII; CX/FFV 03/3; CX/FFV 03/4 and comments submitted from Cuba, Iran, European Community (CX/FFV 03/8); Switzerland (CRD 2); Philippines (CRD 6); India (CRD 7); Indonesia (CRD 8); and, Malaysia (CRD 9)

¹⁷ ALINORM 03/35, para. 105

¹⁸ CX/FFV 03/9; CX/FFV 03/3; CX/FFV 03/4; and comments submitted from the European Community (CX/FFV 03/9-Add. 1); Switzerland (CRD 2); Mexico (CRD3); New Zealand (CRD 4); Australia (CRD 5); India (CRD 7); and, Indonesia (CRD 8)

¹⁹ ALINORM 03/35 para. 75

²⁰ ALINORM 03/41, para. 167

²¹ CX/FFV 03/10 and comments submitted from Germany, Indonesia, the United States (CX/FFV 03/10-Add. 1); Australia (CRD 5); Philippines (CRD 6); Indonesia (CRD 8); Malaysia (CRD 9); and, Thailand (CRD 10)

²² ALINORM 03/35 para. 114 and ALINORM 03/41-App. VIII

²³ CL 2003/20-FFV and comments submitted from Germany, United States, European Community (CX/FFV 03/11); Switzerland (CRD 2); Mexico (CRD3); India (CRD 7); Indonesia (CRD 8); and, Malaysia (CRD 9)

²⁴ ALINORM 03/35, para. 108

²⁵ ALINORM 03/35-App. VII, comments submitted from the European Community (CX/FFV 03/12) and the Philippines (CRD 6).

²⁶ CRD 1