1) The Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products held its 26th Session in Å
OPENING OF THE SESSION
2) The Session was opened by State Secretary of Ministry of Fish and Fisheries Mrs. Janne Johnsen who welcomed the delegates and emphasized the need for preventing the food borne hazards which might be spread via seafood production. She drew the attention of the delegates to the fact that the World Trade Organization Agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade were the basis for international food trade and that the Codex Alimentarius Commission played an important role in assuring the public health protection and facilitation of international food trade through the development of international standards. Noting the importance of the work of the Fish and Fishery Committee in this regard, she wished all success to the delegates.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (Agenda Item 1)1
3) The Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda as proposed.
Expert Consultation on Biotoxins
4) The Committee noted that there was a necessity to clarify the Scope of the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Biotoxins while developing the Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (Agenda Item 6) and the proposed draft Standard for Live and Processed Bivalve Molluscs (Agenda Item 7), therefore agreed to establish an Ad Hoc Working Group2 to this effect (see also paras.130 – 131).
Microbiological Risk Assessment on Vibrio spp
5) Following the request of the Committee on Food Hygiene to examine the discussion paper on the Risk Management Strategies for Vibrio spp. in Seafood and in order to better utilize the outcome of the above document in the preparation of the Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (Agenda Item 6) and the proposed draft Standard for Live and Processed Bivalve Molluscs (Agenda Item 7), the Committee decided to form an Ad Hoc Working Group3 (see also paras. 125 - 129).
MATTERS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION AND OTHER CODEX COMMITTEES (Agenda Item 2)4
6) The Committee noted that a number of matters arising from the 26th Session of the Commission were for information purposes or would be discussed while considering the relevant Agenda Items. In addition the Committee noted the matters of interest to the Committee as follows:
Standard for Canned Sardines and Sardine-Type Products
7) The Committee noted that the 26th Session of the Commission had returned the Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Canned Sardines and Sardine Type Products (Clupea bentincki) due to lack of consensus on this matter. The Committee recalled that the discussion on the above standard and the inclusion of new species in this standard had a long history in the Committee and that there were no new elements put forward in order to resolve this issue, therefore it recommended that the Executive Committee as standards management body discuss whether to discontinue work on the amendment or to propose other appropriate action.
8) The Committee noted the suggestion of the Delegation of Morocco on the linkages between the Amendment to the Standard for Canned Sardines and Agenda Item 12 on the Procedure for Inclusion of Additional Species in Standards for Fish and Fishery Products. However the Committee recognized that these were separate issues from the procedural point of view.
9) The Committee noted the work underway as regards lead in fish and invited interested countries to provide relevant data to the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants.
10) The Representative of WHO informed the Committee about the re-evaluation of methylmercury performed by JECFA and indicated that WHO was developing a risk communication strategy which targeted consumers who eat large quantities of fish and sensitive subgroups of the population.
11) The Committee recalled that following the adoption of the Guideline Levels for methylmercury (1991) the Committee had initiated work on the development of a list of predatory fish as requested by the Commission. The Committee had informed the Executive Committee of the difficulties related to this work and the Executive Committee had requested the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants to undertake a new risk analysis (1996). The 29th Session of the CCFAC had agreed to defer any decision until JECFA had performed the necessary risk assessment (1997). The Committee recalled that pending further advice, the development of the list of predatory fish had been suspended but had not been formally discontinued.
12) The Committee therefore agreed to ask the advice of the Executive Committee as to whether it should discontinue work on the establishment of a list of predatory fish and to give direction on how future work should proceed in the CCFFP and in the CCFAC in view of the new risk assessment of methylmercury.
13) The Representative of WHO indicated that, following earlier discussion on the use of active chlorine, the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants had agreed to elaborate a proposed draft Code of Practice for the Use of Active Chlorine and that WHO would consider and evaluate risk and health benefits of the use of active chlorine in food processing, taking into account both microbiological and chemical safety aspects when reviewing the WHO Guidelines on Drinking Water Quality.
14) The Committee noted that the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling had not endorsed the methods for water activity (AOAC 978.18) and acid insoluble ash in the Standard for Dried Salted Anchovies. As no additional information was available at the present session, the Committee invited member countries to provide the clarification required for consideration by the next session of the CCMAS (March 2004).
15) The Committee considered the document on “The Use of the Analytical Result: Sampling, Relationship between the Analytical Result, the Measurement Uncertainty, Recovery Factors and the Provisions in Codex Standards” that highlighted the need to consider all these related factors in the development of specific provisions in Codex standards and the selection of methods of analysis.
16) The Delegation of the United Kingdom pointed out that uncertainty should always be considered and taken into account when establishing specific provisions in Codex standards. The Committee agreed that the concepts put forward in the document should be taken into account in future work on standards under consideration, such as bivalve molluscs that included biotoxin and microbiological limits. It also agreed that the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling should continue its work to provide guidance for Commodity Committees in this area.
17) The Representative of WHO informed the committee of the history and the following ongoing activities on microbiological risk assessment.
18) Based on the request of the CCFH, WHO and FAO initiated risk assessments for Salmonella spp. in broilers/eggs and Listeria monocytogenes in ready to eat foods in 2000. In 2001, work began on Vibrio parahaemolyticus in bloody clam, finfish eaten raw and oyster, Vibrio vulnificus in oyster, Vibrio cholerae in warm water shrimp for export market and Campylobacter jejuni in chicken.
19) With regards to risk assessment work on Vibrio spp, two JEMRA meetings (1st expert consultation in July 2001 in Geneva, focused on Hazard Characterization and Exposure assessment parts of the risk assessment, 2nd expert consultation in August 2002 in Bangkok, focused on Risk Characterization and replies to the questions passed by the CCFFP) were held to review the outputs from the expert drafting group.
20) Five risk assessments (RA) were currently in various states of completion.
Vibrio parahaemolyticus in oyster
21) The approach being taken is to use the United Stated FDA Draft Risk assessment on the Public Health Impacts of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Raw Molluscan Shellfish model (FDA-VPRA) and further develop it to accommodate data inputs from other countries (New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Japan). The FDA-VPRA contains several key linkages between prevalence of V. parahaemolyticus in oysters and temperature, most notable temperature of harvest waters and of oysters throughout the post-harvest-retail – consumption continuum. The objective of the international risk assessment was to take the FDA-VPRA model developed for one particular scenario and extend it to consumers in other countries.
22) The model can be used to demonstrate the effect of mitigation strategies. For example the effect of thee possible post harvest mitigations can be evaluated in the Monte Carlo simulations:
• Reduced time to refrigeration (rapid cooling)
• Heat treatment.
• Freezing /frozen storage
23) The effects of these mitigation on the probability of illness will be shown when the Risk Assessment is finalized.
Vibrio vulnificus in oyster
24) The approach of extending the V. parahaemolyticus in oysters model in the FAO/WHO VPRA to model V. vulnificus greatly facilitate the risk assessment process. The FAO/WHO VPRA framework and many of the model inputs were applicable for modeling V. vulnificus in the United States oyster and sufficient data was available to conduct a useful risk assessment. Risk Characterization has been employed to evaluate the potential effectiveness of reducing V. vulnificus level in oysters that may be obtained with various mitigation strategies.
25) The RA demonstrated the predicted reduction of illness by introducing a process which achieve the end point criteria < 3 MPN/gram. The RA also illustrated the effective of time unrefrigerated on expected numbers of illness, and the reduction of illness from consumption of raw oysters harvested from growing area with salinities >30ppt in comparison to oysters harvested from moderate salinity growing area, regardless of temperature.
Vibrio parahaemolyticus in bloody clam
26) Bloody clam is believed to be a vehicle causing foodborne V. parahaemolyticus infection. However, no direct epidemiological evidence show the direct linkage between the consumption of bloody clam and V. parahaemolyticus infection. This risk assessment tries to estimate the risk caused by the consumption of in bloody clam based on data collected in Thailand.
Vibrio parahaemolyticus in finfish eaten raw
27) In order to response to the risk management question with regards to the effect of washing fish with disinfected seawater or potable water after harvest or at preparation, the expert drafting group focused on one fish species, ”horse mackerel” which is commonly eaten as “Sashimi” (sliced fish fillet) and reported as implicated food in V. parahaemolyticus food borne outbreaks in Japan and develop a quantitative risk assessment model.
Vibrio cholerae in warm water shrimp for export
28) A “Production to consumption” semi-quantitative risk assessment model was developed to estimate risk of cholera caused by the consumption of warm water shrimp for export. The risk of acquiring cholera through consumption of imported warm water shrimp is very low. However, further research to address the gaps in the data pointed out above need to be taken up.
29) All five risk assessments will be finalized soon, and will be peer reviewed by experts with different backgrounds, then edited and published as a technical document and an interpretative summary.
30) The Representative of WHO also informed the Committee about the response to the questions posed by this Committee. This response is based on the expert opinion of the participants of the Bangkok expert consultation and the work being done as part of the FAO/WHO VPRA.
31) The Committee noted the information concerning the forthcoming FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Animals, Including Fish (Rome, 17-21 November 2003) and the FAO/WHO/OIE Expert Consultation on Non-Human Antibiotic Usage and Antibiotic Resistance (Rome, 1-5 December 2003).
32) The Representative of FAO indicated that an updated version of the FAO technical paper on Assessment and Monitoring of Seafood Safety and Quality had recently been published.
DRAFT STANDARD FOR SALTED ATLANTIC HERRING AND SALTED SPRATS (Agenda Item 3)5
33) The Committee recalled that the last Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission had adopted the above Standard at Step 5 and that it had been circulated for comments at Step 6.
34) The Committee considered the draft Standard Section by Section and in addition to editorial corrections made the following changes.
35) In order to leave an opportunity for member countries to ensure the necessary level of public health protection of their consumers regarding Clostridium botulinum, the Committee agreed to add an additional sentence to the end of paragraph to read:
“Countries where the products are to be consumed may allow this product in an uneviscerated state or may require evisceration, either before or after processing, since the margin of error in the control of Clostridium botulinum is small even when good practices are followed and the consequences are severe”.
Section 2.2 Process Definition
36) The Committee amended the second sentence of this section in order to clarify that not only temperature but also time should be sufficient in order to control the development of Clostridium botulinum.
Section 2.2.2.1 Very Lightly Salted Fish
37) The Committee clarified that the lower limit of salt content in water phase should be above 1 g/100 g in water phase.
Section 2.2.3 Storage Temperatures
38) In order to ensure public health protection, the Committee clarified that very lightly salted fish must be kept frozen after processing.
Section 3.1 Fish
39) The Committee added an additional sentence to the end of this section in order to indicate that fish flesh should not be obviously infested by parasites.
Section 3.4 Decomposition
40) The Committee clarified that the products should not contain more than 10 mg of histamine per 100 g fish flesh.
Section 4 Food Additives
41) The Committee corrected the class name for ascorbic and citric acids.
42) The Committee noted that the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) included a level for propyl gallate in category 9.2.5 “Smoked, dried, fermented, and/or salted fish and fish products, including molluscs, crustaceans, and echinoderms” but agreed to delete this additive from the present list as its use was not technologically justified in salted Atlantic herring and salted sprats. It was noted that this would affect some of the products covered by the food category concerned in the GSFA. As the additives section had already been endorsed, the Committee agreed to forward this amendment to the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants for endorsement.
Section 5 Hygiene
43) The Committee noted that physical foreign material (e.g pieces of glass) might cause public health problems, therefore added an additional Section 5.6 to this effect.
Section 6 Labelling
44) The Committee included a separate Section 6.2 on Labelling of Non-Retail Containers in order to be consistent with labelling provisions in other standards.
Section 7.1 Sampling Plan for Containers (Barrels)
45) In order to provide better guidance on sampling for quality and safety provisions, the Committee agreed to amend the wording of 7.1 (i) and to use the wording for sampling provisions of the standard on Quick Frozen Finfish. It also clarified sampling provisions for the determination of pathogenic microorganisms and parasites as well as for histamine in paragraphs 7.1 (ii) and (iii).
Section 7.4 Determination of Water Content
46) The Committee noted that the determination of water content should be performed according to AOAC 95046B. The Committee had an exchange of views on the need for this method, or whether it should be replaced by water activity. The Delegation of Norway clarified that a method for water content was necessary since the product is defined by the salt content in water phase and not in the fish flesh.
Section 7.7 Determination of Net Weight
47) The Committee decided to clarify the provisions for net weight calculation and inserted a paragraph to this effect.
Section 7.8 Determination of Drained Weight
48) The Committee agreed to delete Section 7.8 as the determination of net weight was sufficient according to current practice.
Section 8.1.2 Parasites
49) The Committee had an extensive discussion regarding the detection of visible parasites in relation to the defectiveness of product. Some delegations were of the view that products intended for further processing should be excepted from examination while others argued that the examination should cover both types, i.e. intended for further processing and direct consumption in the sample of the edible portion. The Committee decided to retain the current wording of Section 8.1.2 and added a new Annex clarifying the methodology of the determination of the presence of visible parasites.
Section 8.1.3 Odour and Flavour/taste
50) The Committee noted that personnel trained in sensory evaluation could feel a “burning sensation” which could be produced even by presence of low levels of histamine, therefore added this sensory feeling to the examples on decomposition. The burning sensation should be later confirmed by chemical analysis.
Section 9 Lot Acceptance
51) Bullet (iii) on the acceptance number was deleted as superfluous and references to sections in bullet (iv) (now bullet (iii)) were corrected.
Annexes
52) As regards Annex II, the Delegation of Germany informed the Committee that studies were underway on the treatments to kill nematodes but that substantial work was still needed in order to complete that section.
53) The Committee clarified the method of determination of salt content in Annex III and transferred the reference to Section 7.3. The reference to Annex IV was deleted as the method for determination of water was provided in Section 7.4 (see para. 46).
Status of the Draft Standard for Salted Atlantic Herring and Salted Sprat
54) The Committee agreed to advance the Draft Standard to Step 8 for final adoption by the 27th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (see Appendix II).
CERTIFICATES FOR FISH AND FISHERY PRODUCTS (Agenda Item 4)
DRAFT MODEL CERTIFICATES FOR FISH AND FISHERY PRODUCTS (Agenda Item 4a)6
55) The Committee recalled that the Draft Model Certificate had been adopted at Step 5 by the 26th Session of the Commission and comments had been requested in CL 2003/30-FFP. The Committee considered the text section by section and made the following amendments and comments.
56) The Delegation of Italy, speaking on behalf of the member states of the European Union, drew the attention of the Committee to the EC comments in CRD 4, and in particular the need to address the issue of jurisdiction of the competent authority as regards vessels, such as factory vessels in order to ensure reliable certification systems. The Committee agreed that new substantial issues could not be introduced at this stage since the document was at Step 7 but that the question of certification and jurisdiction of the competent authority as regards vessels would require further work in the future.
57) The Committee agreed to add a reference to the competent authority in the definition of “certifying bodies” for clarification purposes and made a similar change in section 5.2.4.
58) In section 5.1.1 Model Sanitary Certificates, the Committee agreed to replace “shipment” with “consignment” to reflect current practice.
59) The Committee agreed to replace “Reference Number” with “Identification number” as this reflected current practice, and the Annex was amended accordingly.
60) The Committee discussed extensively how to address the situation when more than one certificate was issued. The section was amended to indicate that the identification should be unique for each certificate, and should be authorized by the competent authority of the exporting country. It was further agreed that additional information required on a temporary basis might be incorporated as an addendum or an attestation, and that any addendum must have the same identification number as the primary certificate and the same signature.
Section 5.2.2 Country of Dispatch
61) The Committee agreed to delete the first phrase in square brackets and to clarify the responsibility of the competent authority in the country of dispatch.
62) The Delegation of Iran proposed to refer to the identification of the container as an alternative to the lot in view of practical difficulties related to lot identification. However the current text was retained and the Committee noted that how inspection was carried out in practice would be the responsibility of each country.
Section 5.2.9 Attestation
63) The Committee amended the section to reflect that the attestation did not refer to the product itself but to the status of the establishment with the competent authority and to the existence of a HACCP and sanitary programme.
Section 5.2.12 Seal and signature
64) The Committee agreed that the section should be applicable both to printed and electronic certification, while stressing the need to minimize the risk of fraud.
65) The Committee amended the Annex as a result of the changes made in the previous sections and made some other editorial changes. The Committee agreed that the description and scientific names should be presented separately.
66) Following some discussion, the Committee recognized that the certifying body if different from the competent authority shall be officially recognized by the competent authority to issue certificates.
67) The Committee agreed to replace “official inspector” with “certifying officer” as this was consistent with the Guidelines for Generic Official Certificate Formats and the Production and Issuance of Certificates.
Status of the Draft Model Certificate for Fish and Fishery Products (Sanitary Certificate)
68) The Committee agreed to advance the Draft Model Certificate to Step 8 for final adoption by the 27th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (See Appendix III).
PROPOSED DRAFT MODEL CERTIFICATE FOR FISH AND FISHERY PRODUCTS (OTHER CERTIFICATES) (Agenda Item 4b)7
69) The Chairman noted that several concerns had been expressed by member countries in the written comments on the elaboration of model certificates that required lot by lot certification for other purposes than sanitary inspection. The Committee agreed that the need for additional certificates in specific circumstances had been addressed in the framework of the Draft Model Sanitary Certificate discussed above and that there was no need for further work on other certificates.
Status of the Proposed Draft Model Certificates (Other Certificates)
70) In view of the above discussion, the Committee agreed to discontinue work on the elaboration of Proposed Draft Model Certificates (Other Certificates).
DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE STANDARD FOR QUICK FROZEN LOBSTERS (Agenda Item 5)8
71) The Committee recalled that the draft Amendment had been adopted at Step 5 by the 26th Session of the Commission and advanced to Step 6 of the Procedure.
72) The Delegation of El Salvador referring to its written comments pointed out that taxonomic studies demonstrated that the species Pleuroncodes planipes belonged to the Galatheidae family. It was marketed and labelled as “ Squat Lobster” in some countries and FAO had carried out a study on this demersal resource in the coast of Central America. The Delegation proposed to include it in the Amendment to the Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Lobsters. This proposal was supported by several delegations.
73) Some delegations questioned the necessity of the inclusion of Pleuroncodes planipes in the Draft Amendment at quite a late stage of development. The Delegation of France pointed out that the mandate given to the Committee by Circular Letter 2003/3-FFP was limited to the inclusion of the species Cervimunida johnii and Pleuroncodes monodon. However the Committee was of the view that this was not an addition of new species but the extension of the standard to cover a new type of product named “Squat Lobster”. The Committee agreed to the proposal of El Salvador to include the species Pleuroncodes planipes into the Standard for Quick Frozen Lobsters.
74) The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Amendment on the inclusion of squat lobster (species Cervimunida johnii, Pleuroncodes monodon and Pleuroncodes planipes) to Step 8 for adoption by the Commission (see Appendix IV).
PROPOSED DRAFT CODE OF PRACTICE FOR FISH AND FISHERY PRODUCTS
(Agenda Item 6)9
75) The Committee recalled that several sections of the Code had been adopted by the Commission and that the other sections had been circulated for comments at Step 3 by CL 2003/6-FFP. Following the decision taken at the last session, a Working Group had been held prior to the session to consider the Proposed Draft Sections, especially aquaculture and bivalve molluscs.
76) Mr Alfred Bungay (Canada), Chair of the Working Group, presented its conclusions, that had been incorporated into the revised text by the Drafting Group consisting of Canada, France and the United Kingdom. The overall consistency of the sections had also been checked, including the terms related to “potential hazards” and “potential defects”. The Committee noted that the Working Group had agreed on the following key points.
• The scope was broadened to include all aquatic animals, except mammalian species, but excluding bivalve molluscs covered in section 7 of the Code. The definition for “aquaculture” was revised accordingly.
• It was acknowledged that the work of aquaculture activities be carried out in a responsible way not only in terms of their impact on human health, but equally any environmental consequences as well as ecological and fish health aspects. This has been achieved by the inclusion of a “Preamble” section that highlights these concepts upfront and makes reference to the FAO “Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries”. The introductory section has therefore been re-ordered for a more logical flow and there were consequential deletions of relevant texts.
• Other definitions were also added whilst some subsections, including relevant references to international codes, were revised.
• Due to time constraints, the Working Group completed discussions up to and including Section 7.2 - Classification and Monitoring of Growing Areas and did not discuss the remaining text. The following key points were agreed:
• It was clarified that the scope covers live and raw bivalve molluscs as a principle and no specific changes were made in this respect due to lack of time.
• Several definitions and some subsections were revised as attached.
• There was a lengthy debate on the proposal to include “post harvest treated bivalve molluscs” and how they could be dealt with in this section. A definition for “Post Harvest Treated Bivalve Molluscs” was proposed and placed in square brackets for further discussion by the Committee.
77) The Committee expressed its thanks to the Working Group and the Drafting Group for their excellent work to facilitate the discussion of several complex issues. The Committee considered the revised text proposed by the Working Group (CRD 6) and made the following amendments and comments.
Section 2.2 Definitions - Aquaculture
78) The definition was amended to specify that reptiles and amphibians were excluded and consequential amendments were made where required. The Committee agreed that when fish was temporarily placed in an aquaculture establishment, it should be covered by the Code in order to control hazards to health. It was therefore agreed that aquaculture should cover the farming of aquatic animals “during part or the whole of their life cycle” as proposed by the Delegation of Malaysia.
79) The Committee agreed to replace “aquatic animals” with “fish” throughout the text to be consistent with the definition.
80) As regards “Good Aquaculture Practice”, the Committee deleted the reference to animal welfare as this would be covered in the Preamble.
81) Following an extensive discussion on the definitions of “Chemicals” and “Residues” the Committee agreed to delete the examples in these definitions to prevent confusion with terms that were already defined, and to delete the definition of “Pollutants”. In the defintion of “Veterinary Drugs”, the reference to crustaceans was deleted for consistency with the Codex definition.
82) The Committee agreed with the proposals of the Delegation of Thailand to ensure consistency between the definitions of Extensive Farming, Semi-intensive Farming and Intensive Farming.
Section 6. Aquaculture Production
83) The Committee agreed with the inclusion of the Preamble proposed and added a reference to fish welfare in conjunction with fish health in the second paragraph.
Identification of Potential Hazards 6.2
84) The Committee agreed that water in closed recirculation systems is constantly “refreshed” rather than “purified” and the last sentence was amended accordingly.
85) In section 6.3.1 Feed Supply, the Committee agreed that the eighth bullet point should cover only products originating from fish and deleted the reference to rejects from animal slaughterhouses, that was covered in the ninth bullet point.
86) In section 6.3.2 Veterinary Drugs, the Committee agreed to retain the two last paragraphs without square brackets. It was clarified that when the drug level exceeded the MRL, slaughter should be postponed until fish complied with the MRL.
87) In section 6.3.2 and 6.3.5, the Committee agreed to replace “traceability” with “product tracing” as it was consistent with the adopted text in section 3.7 and the earlier decision of the Committee in this respect. Some delegations accepted this decision as regards the Code but pointed out that the issue of traceability/product tracing was still under consideration and that in general both terms should be used.
88) In section 6.3.6, the Committee deleted the last bullet point as the reference to the OIE texts was covered in the Preamble.
Section 2.3 Definitions – Bivalve Molluscs
89) The Committee agreed to correct the definition of “Growing Areas” for clarification purposes. In the definition of “Purification”, the Committee deleted the reference to “tanks, floats or rafts” as it was not essential to the definition and current practice might differ from one country to another. In the definition of “Relaying” the Committee clarified that molluscs were removed to an acceptable growing or holding area in order to reduce contamination to an acceptable level for human consumption.
90) As related to the definition of “Post-Harvest Treatment’, the Committee had an extensive discussion on the Scope and the use of such treatments. The Delegation of Canada, supported by other delegations, pointed out that in order to address biotoxin hazards, the Code should cover the bivalves intended both for direct consumption and for further processing.
91) The Observer from the EC expressed the view that the code should cover only live molluscs since they were received and dispatched live in the distribution centre and this was where inspection was carried out. The Observer also pointed out that products that had been subjected to post-harvest treatment should be considered as semi-processed and excluded from the Code.
92) Other delegations pointed out that the definition of “distribution centre” was different in other countries, that it received live molluscs but was not necessarily intended to dispatch only live molluscs, and that several treatments applied for food safety purposes did not affect the raw character of the molluscs.
93) The Delegation of the United States indicated that post-harvest treatment were applied to eliminate or reduce target organisms, and in particular Vibrio vulnificus that could not be controlled through the usual processes of water classification and control. Post harvest treatments had been considered as control measures in the framework of the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Vibrio spp. and were the only alternative to closing the growing area. The Delegation also pointed out that the sensory qualities of a raw bivalve were retained and that such products should be covered by the Code.
94) The Observer from the EC, at the request of the Delegation of the United States to include a “Post Harvest Treatment” to solve certain problems like the presence of Vibrio vulnificus in certain waters, stated that it was ready to discuss in depth when more data would be available, with the objective of giving a specific solution to a specific problem.
95) The Committee recognized that consensus could not be reached at this stage and agreed that the title should refer to “live and raw bivalve molluscs” with “raw” in square brackets, as well as the definition of “Post-Harvest Treatment”. The Committee agreed that Section 2.3 and 7 should be returned to Step 3 for further comments with additional text prepared by the Delegation of the United States concerning the rationale for post-harvest treatment, in conjunction with the flow diagram (7.1). The Committee also agreed to refer to “dispatch center” rather than “distribution center”.
96) The Committee noted that due to time constraints, it would not be possible to finalize all other sections of the Code and agreed to consider Section 10. Processing of Quick Frozen Coated Fish Products and the related definitions. It was recalled that the section had been developed by the Delegations of Germany and the United States and that several aspects were related to Section 8 covering frozen fish.
Section 2.6 Definitions - Quick Frozen Coated Fish Products
97) The Committee agreed to clarify the definition of “Sawing” and agreed on the other definitions. The Committee agreed that the Section should be restricted to coated fish products at this stage, since coated molluscs could be considered in the future and coated shrimps would be covered in the section on shrimps and prawns.
Section 10. Processing of Quick Frozen Coated Fish Products
98) The Committee corrected the description of potential hazards and defects throughout the text in order to ensure consistency within the section and with the rest of the Code.
Section 10.2.1 Hazards
99) The Committee agreed to include additional text concerning the control of microbial growth and toxin formation from Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus cereus, as proposed by the Delegation of Canada and amended after some discussion.
100) The title of section 10.3.1 was amended to read “Reception” and the first sentence was deleted since the section did not apply only to raw material reception. In Section 10.3.1.3 Packaging Materials, the Committee agreed to add a recommendation concerning the examination of pre-printed labelling for accuracy.
101) The Committee agreed to replace the current text of 10.3.2.1 Fish (Frozen Storage) with a reference to section 8.1.3 and to add a new section 10.3.2.2.on Chilled storage that referred to section 8.1.2.
102) The Committee agreed to include a new section 10.3.3 Frozen Fish Blocks/Fillet Tempering (after 10.3.2 Storage of Raw Material) to provide technical guidance concerning the tempering of blocks, as proposed by the Delegations of Canada and New Zealand.
103) The Committee clarified that the last bullet point applied in case the production process was interrupted.
104) In Section 10.3.4.1 Sawing, the Committee agreed that saw dust should be collected in special containers if it was used for further processing. A new section was added (after Sawing) on the Application of Additives and Ingredients and the corresponding box was included in the flow chart. In section 10.3.4.2 Forming, the technical guidance was amended to cover mechanical forming of fish mixtures.
105) A new bullet point was added to indicate that broken, misshapen or out of specification pieces should be removed from production.
106) The Delegation of Japan expressed the view that the text should address the time and not only the temperature of frying. After some discussion, and noting that pre-frying was a very short process, the Committee agreed to add a reference to the temperature of the oil in the second bullet point. The Committee also agreed to refer to the products of fat degradation rather that oxidation as it was more general and would also cover polymerization.
107) The Committee noted that when coated products were made with fresh fish this step was not “re-freezing” but “final freezing” and amended the title accordingly.
108) A reference to section 8.2.1 Weighing was added as this was also relevant. The Committee amended the second bullet point to refer to other detection methods (in addition to metal detectors).
109) A reference to section 8.1.3 Frozen Storage was added and the paragraphs that were already covered in that section were deleted to avoid duplication.
110) The Committee added the thawing of frozen products as a potential defect
111) As a result of the above amendments, the Committee added the following steps to the flow chart: tempering; raw material, fish blocks, off-cuts or sawdust; and application of additives and ingredients.
112) The Committee had an exchange of view on the opportunity of retaining the Appendices containing optional requirements. Several delegations expressed the view that these requirements were useful as a reference in trade and the Committee agreed that they should be retained and completed as required.
113) The Committee agreed to advance Sections 2.2 and 2.6 of the Definitions, Section 6. Aquaculture and Section 10. Quick Frozen Coated Products to Step 5 with the recommendation that the Commission omit Steps 6 and 7 and adopt them at Step 8 (see Appendix V).
114) The Committee agreed to return to Step 3 Section 7. Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs as indicated above, and the other sections that had not been discussed at the current session. It was agreed that the section on shrimps and prawns would be replaced by the revised text provided by the United Kingdom at the last session and in its written comments (see Appendix VIII).
115) The Committee agreed that Canada, France and the United Kingdom would consider the sections at Step 3 and the comments received in order to prepare a revised text for consideration by the next session, if required.
PROPOSED DRAFT STANDARD FOR LIVE AND PROCESSED BIVALVE MOLLUSCS
(Agenda Item 7)10
116) The Chairperson recalled that the proposed draft Standard had been considered at the 25th Session of the Committee and that several important issues such as the Scope, targeted pathogens, products tracing/traceability and levels and determination of biotoxins were unresolved, therefore he proposed not to discuss the proposed draft Standard section by section but to concentrate discussion on these matters which would provide guidance for further elaboration of the standard.
117) The Delegation of Italy, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the EU present at the current Session, drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Scope should be consistent with the relevant section of the Code considered under Agenda Item 6 and limited to live and raw bivalve molluscs. The wording “raw” should therefore be kept in square brackets in the Standard until agreement on this matter was reached in the Code. The Delegation also pointed out that the use of the term “product tracing/traceability” should be consistent with concepts elaborated by other Codex Committees.
118) Several delegations supported the view that the Scope of the proposed Draft Standard should be limited to live and raw bivalve molluscs and noted that the work on processed bivalve molluscs products could be carried out at a later stage. Some delegations were of the view that square brackets around the word ”raw” were not necessary.
119) The Committee agreed to limit the Scope to live and raw bivalve molluscs intended for direct human consumption or further processing, therefore amended the title and the wording in the Scope accordingly and put the word “raw” in the title in square brackets.
120) The Committee clarified the wording of the Scope in order to make it clear that all bivalve molluscs were covered except scallop adductor muscle for which a separate standard was being elaborated. As a consequence of this decision the third sentence containing the reference to Quick Frozen Scallop Muscle Adductor Meat was deleted.
121) The Committee decided to take out the wording regarding traceability/product tracing from the Scope and to move it to a proper place at a later stage.
122) The Committee decided to amend the second sentence of Section 2.1 on Product Definition to read “Raw bivalve molluscs are products that are no longer alive immediately prior to consumption but were alive immediately prior to the commencement of processing or to shucking, freezing or other treatment that did not eliminate the sensory characteristics of live product” in square brackets. As a consequence of previous decisions, the wording of the rest of Section 2.1 was deleted.
123) The Committee agreed that the reference containing wording in relation to processed products, especially canned products, should be taken out from the proposed Draft Standard.
124) The Committee noted the information provided by the Delegation of Thailand that limits for biotoxins such as Azaspiracid (AZP), Yessotoxins have not been reported in tropical waters, therefore decided to put Sections 5.3 (iv) to 5.3 (ix) in square brackets until more information on risk assessment on these issues from the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation became available.
125) The Committee noted the report of the Ad Hoc Working Group presented by Dr G. P. Hoskin prepared in reply to the request of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene. It expressed appreciation to the Working Group and to the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation for their excellent response to the CCFFP questions and agreed to the following.
126) The codes and standards developed by the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products address hazards in standards and provide guidance on their controls in codes. The codes typically emphasize the need to avoid hazards as well as provide some information on mitigation. This information tends to be general in nature due to the variability and complexity of the products and their movement from harvest through to final product production. However the development of the Code of Practice for Bivalve Molluscs and the Standard for Bivalve Molluscs makes use of information in vibrios newly available from risk profiles and risk assessments. In particular, the four risk management questions posed by the CCFFP to the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation as well as the information in the risk profile from the Committee on Food Hygiene are of great value to the Committee and will be further considered by the Committee during its work on the Code and Standard for bivalve molluscan shellfish. There will be further discussion in the Committee with respect to reducing the risk in raw molluscs from pathogens not controlled by the traditional harvest water criteria and traditional use of post-growing water treatment by relaying or depuration.
127) The Committee noted that the Risk Management document addresses V. parahaemolyticus in depth, but does not explore other marine vibrios that may be pathogenic.
128) The Committee further noted that questions facing risk managers include the effectiveness of mitigation procedures, the need to find and adopt the most relevant testing methods, the need for risk managers to establish tolerances, and the need to know which products present significant hazards from any particular source.
Examples include:
• Do V. parahaemolyticus from tropical latitudes include pathogenic strains such as the notably pathogenic O3:K6 strain in temperate marine populations?
• Should products from open ocean fisheries be examined at import for V. parahaemolyticus or V. cholerae? The risk profile did cite cases from products apparently from open ocean fisheries such as tuna.
• What is the risk from naturally occurring V. cholerae in tropical latitudes?
• What is the risk from V. parahaemolyticus, and other marine vibrios, on products intended for further processing, including cooking, compared with products intended for raw, or lightly cooked, consumption? Could or should risk managers set a different tolerance to be applied to each product based on its intended use?
• More information is needed by risk managers if they are to use total limits for vibrios (e.g., use of a tolerance of 0, 100, or 1000 cfu/g V. parahaemolyticus) to control the risk from pathogenic strains, such as tdh + strains. Would the risk be different for products from tropical latitudes compared with temperate latitudes?
• How effective is the use of disinfected potable water wash or chlorinated water wash on fish/shrimp and other non-bivalve molluscan species of seafood in reducing bacterial loads?
• How do these processes, that are intended to reduce bacterial loads, compare to temperature control processes intended to prevent increases in bacterial numbers?
129) The Committee agreed that further specific advice and cooperation might be required from the Committee on Food Hygiene on risk management questions in the future.
Biotoxins
130) The Committee noted the request to clarify the Scope for an FAO/WHO Expert Consultation pertaining to marine algal biotoxins. It thanked the Ad Hoc Working Group for their excellent work and agreed that the following items should be addressed:
Provisions of Scientific Advice for the Establishment of Safe Upper Limits:
• Review of toxicological information and provisional scientific advice to define which toxins belong in which toxin group, and recommendations for the establishment of upper safety limits for the following toxin groups: PSP-, DSP-, ASP-, AZP- and NSP-toxins, and YTXs and PTXs.
• Provide advice on management of new toxins and newly discovered analogues of existing toxins where either;
i. There is no epidemiological evidence of illness resulting, or
ii. Where epidemiological evidence exists.
Provide guidance on the application of different methods of analysis concerning each toxin group:
• Bioassays, analytical instrumental methods (HPLC, LC-MS…), immunological methods, other rapid methods – which methods should be considered reliable for each toxin group to ensure safety of product.
• Recommend choice of reference method in case of conflicting results
• Discuss needs for standards and reference materials
• Suggest management of analytical results, concerning precision, standard deviation, acceptance levels etc
Monitoring:
• Provide guidance on which part of the seafood (shellfish or other) should be used for analysis (whole meat, different edible parts, digestive organs…)
• Provide guidance on sampling methods; suggest minimum representative sampling (size of sample, number of samples, different depths, frequency etc)
• Provide guidance on use of phytoplankton monitoring (strengths and weaknesses) as part of a shellfish biotoxin control program.
• Provide guidance on indicator organisms for the different toxin groups
Geographic Distribution:
• Provide information on the existence of biotoxin forming marine algae in various geographical regions of the world.
131) The Committee noted that results from the FAO/WHO Expert Consultations would be communicated by the Representatives of FAO/WHO and that these results would provide the basis for further Committee’s actions in this regard.
132) The Committee agreed to attach the revised version of the Proposed Draft Standard to this report for circulation and government comments at Step 3 of the Procedure (see Appendix IX).
PROPOSED DRAFT STANDARD FOR QUICK FROZEN SCALLOP ADDUCTOR MUSCLE MEAT (Agenda Item 8)11
133) The Committee recalled that the Proposed Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Scallop Adductor Muscle Meat had been discussed at the 24th Session. The Committee had clarified the Scope and amended the proposed draft Standard in order to avoid overlap with the proposed draft Standard for Bivalve Molluscs, however there was extensive debate regarding the provisions for moisture content, additives and biotoxins on which agreement was not reached. The Chairperson drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that due to time constraints and the presence of unresolved fundamental questions it would not be possible to proceed with consideration of the proposed draft Standard Section by Section therefore proposed to concentrate discussion on the above unresolved issues.
134) The Delegation of Canada introduced the document prepared in order to address the problem of moisture content and polyphosphates in scallop adductor muscle meat and invited the Committee to consider the proposed conclusions which included three options:
• provide upper moisture limits according to GMP and give consideration that moisture/protein ration value might replace the percentage value;
• in case it was not possible to establish one acceptable moisture limit the following criteria might be considered by countries in developing a moisture content limit:
a. species
b. harvest practice
c. seasonality
d. geographical location and other criteria that relate to amount of water uptake occurring during processing in accordance with GMP.
• Retain the current moisture content for further discussion.
• Delete the provisions on maximum moisture content from the standard
135) While considering these options several delegations recognized difficulties in this area due to existing natural differences among member countries existing in scallop species, harvesting practices, geographical conditions, GMPs etc and expressed the view that more work was necessary to overcome these variations.
136) The Delegation of the United Kingdom drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that this discussion was quite similar to the discussion on fish content in fish sticks in relation to GMP. The Delegation indicated that if water was added over a trigger limit it should be labelled, as this issue was very important for consumers.
137)
The Chairperson noted that different moisture content existed in various countries and that any limit discussed at the Committee either should be kept in Section 3.3.2 in square brackets or the Committee should find ways to proceed such as addressing this issue in a code of practice or elaborating GMPs that would be used as a basis for national legislation.
138) Some delegations pointed out that this matter could be progressed further while using M/P ratio.
139) The Committee recognized that this issue required in depth consideration, therefore decided to leave Section 3.3.2 on moisture content unchanged and requested the Delegation of Canada together with Australia, France, Germany, Japan and Thailand to work further on moisture content especially in conjunction with the work on GMPs.
140) It was proposed that this controversial issue on the use of additives should be left to national authorities to decide, however the Committee was of the view that this was a deviation from Codex objectives.
141) The Committee noted that the existing provisions of the proposed draft Standard did not allow the use of food additives, however in some countries the use of food additives such as polyphosphates and other additives was common practice. Some delegations noted that polyphosphates were allowed in other fish standards therefore in order to be consistent with these standards they suggested to allow the use of these additives.
142) The Secretariat clarified that ascorbyl esters and EDTA were already allowed in the General Standard for Food Additives, therefore it might be useful to include them in the proposed Draft Standard and ask for comments from member governments in the future.
143) The Committee decided to amend the Section on Food Additives by inserting wording in square brackets that “polyphosphates are allowed in these products (to be further elaborated)” and requested comments on the use of actual compounds and their proposed levels.
144) The Committee noted that visible parasites were quality defects for these products and it had the greatest negative impact on consumer acceptance, therefore accepted the proposal of the Delegation of the United States and inserted the wording that “the presence of visible parasites on the near surface of the scallop adductor muscle shall not exceed 20% of individuals in the sample”. The wording regarding their determination was added in Section 7 on Sampling, Examination and Analysis as a new Section 7.8 (Parasites).
145) The Committee decided to retain the proposed draft Standard at Step 4 until the issue of moisture content was resolved, for further consideration.
PROPOSED DRAFT STANDARD FOR SMOKED FISH (Agenda Item 9)12
146) The Chairperson recalled that the document on the Proposed Draft Standard for Smoked Fish prepared by the Delegation of Denmark (CRD 10) had not been available for government comments before the Session, therefore it was not possible to consider it in more detail.
147) Some delegations suggested to include the use of liquid smoke in the Scope as this type of technology alone or in combination was currently used in some countries. The Delegation of the Netherlands offered their assistance in elaborating this Section.
148) The Delegation of Israel proposed to consider the use of antimicrobial food additives, such as acetic acid to prevent contamination by Listeria.
149) The Committee noted that the document on the control of Clostridium botulinum prepared by the United States provided major control options for control of botulism in smoked products, therefore it might be a useful matrix in further elaboration of the proposed draft Standard.
150) The Representative of WHO informed the Committee that the FAO/WHO Risk Assessment on Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-to-Eat Foods would be published by the end of this year and that it contained a section on smoked fish, therefore it might be useful in further elaboration of the Standard.
151) The Secretariat informed the Committee that the Committee on Food Hygiene was developing proposed draft Guidelines for Control of Listeria monocytogenes in Foods in order to provide specific control strategies for this microorganism and that this document might also be useful for the work on smoked fish.
152) The Committee agreed to attach the proposed draft Standard for Smoked Fish (CRD 10) to this report for comments at Step 3 (see Appendix XI). The Delegation of Denmark assisted by interested countries would revise the document for circulation and consideration at the next session of the Committee.
PROPOSED DRAFT STANDARD FOR GRANULAR STURGEON CAVIAR (Agenda Item 10)13
153) The Committee recalled that its last session had agreed to undertake the elaboration of a standard for granular sturgeon caviar to be developed by the Russian Federation, and that this had been approved as new work by the 26th Session of the Commission.
154) The Delegation of the Russian Federation presented the Proposed Draft and expressed its thanks to the delegations of Germany and Iran that had provided comments on the initial draft. The Delegation highlighted the main quality and safety provisions included in the text, especially the list of species covered, sensory criteria, the need for safety limits and specific labelling provisions. The Committee expressed its appreciation to the Delegation of the Russian Federation for its work in the development of a comprehensive standard.
Title
155) The Committee had an extensive discussion on the title. The Delegation of the Russian Federation, supported by several delegations, proposed to amend the title to read “caviar” instead of “sturgeon caviar” as caviar was only prepared from sturgeon species. Other delegations expressed the view that caviar could be prepared from other species and that the current title should be retained. The Committee noted that different production practices existed in various countries and could not come to a consensus on this question. It therefore agreed to retain the reference to “sturgeon” in the title in square brackets for further discussion.
Definitions
156) The Committee agreed to amend the definition of “2.1.1 Granular caviar” to “Fish egg” since the product cannot yet be described as caviar at that stage, and to clarify the definition further, as proposed by the Delegation of France. Some consequential amendments were also made throughout the text.
157) The Committee noted some comments on the definition of the caviar lot, primary package and secondary package but did not come to a conclusion.
158) The Committee deleted the following definitions that were already covered in other Codex texts: Potable Water, Aquaculture, Decomposition (Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products); and “Food Additive” (Procedural Manual). The Committee also deleted the definition of “biological species” as it was not necessary in the rest of the text and “foreign admixtures” as the usual term was foreign matter.
159) In the definition of “Primary Package” a reference to “other suitable containers” was added as packages were not limited to metal or glass cans. The relevant changes were made throughout the text.
Section 2.2 Product Definition
160) The Committee agreed that it was not necessary to include the list of species as there was consensus that all species in the Acipenseridae family should be covered. The current list was therefore replaced with a statement to the effect that the product was prepared from eggs of fish of the Acipenseridae family and hybrids of these species.
Section 2.3 Process Definition
161) In section 2.3.1, the Delegation of Brazil pointed out that in case of re-packaging, there should be no mixing of products of different quality, in addition to “different species”, and the Committee amended the text accordingly, with an additional reference to different “lots” in square brackets, as proposed by the Observer from the EC. Some editorial changes were also made to the paragraph. The Committee amended section 2.3.2 to clarify the types of contamination concerned.
162) The Committee recognized that freezing of the product was used in some specific cases and agreed to delete the last sentence accordingly.
Section 2.4 Handling Practice
163) Some delegations asked for clarification on the “maturation stage IV” and the Delegation of the Russian Federation indicated that it would provide a paper with additional explanations for consideration by the next session. The Committee also made some editorial changes in the second indent.
164) The Committee discussed whether the reference to “living sturgeon fish” should be replaced with “freshly slaughtered” and the Committee agreed to refer only to “sturgeon fishes” as proposed by the Delegation of Sweden, in this section and in section 3.1 Raw Material.
Section 4.Food Additives
165) The Committee noted that in accordance with the format of Codex Standards, a section on food additives should be included and invited countries to provide comments in this respect. The Secretariat indicated that currently the additives allowed in the General Standard for Food Additives included only colorants (Caramel Class III and IV, Fast Green FCF) in Food Category 9.3.3 “Salmon substitutes, caviar, and other fish roe products”.
Section 5. Contaminants
166) The Delegation of Iran, supported by other delegations, pointed out that caviar was consumed in very small quantities and that the establishment of maximum limits for contaminants would not be justified.
167) The Observer from the EC pointed out that any maximum limits for contaminants or microbiological limits should be based on an evaluation by JECFA or JEMRA as food safety provisions in Codex standards should be based on a scientific risk assessment. Several delegations recalled that there was no contaminant section in the standards for fish and fishery products, and that it was not necessary in the present standard.
168) After some discussion, the Committee agreed to delete the current Table and to include general recommendations to the effect that the provisions for pesticides and contaminants should comply with the levels established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as was used in other commodity standards.
Section 6. Food Hygiene
169) The Committee agreed to delete the microbiological values and to replace the section with the general Food Hygiene provisions included in the Procedural Manual, as proposed by the Delegation of the United States, in square brackets.
Section 7. Food Labelling
170) The Committee noted some proposals for amendment but as it was not possible to discuss them due to time constraints, the current section was retained for further comments and consideration at the next session.
171) The Committee agreed to delete section 8.1.2 as it duplicated section 8.1.1.
172) The Committee added a new section 9.4 Extraneous Material indicating that membranes and fat clusters should be absent from finished granular caviar.
173) The Committee recognized that although significant progress had been made in the consideration of the standard, some substantial issues remained to be addressed and further discussion would be necessary at the next session.
174) The Committee agreed to return the Proposed Draft Standard, as amended at the present session, to Step 3 for further comments (see Appendix X). The Committee agreed that the Delegation of the Russian Federation, with the assistance of interested countries, would redraft the text in the light of the comments received for consideration at the next session.
PROPOSED DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE STANDARD FOR SALTED FISH AND DRIED SALTED FISH (Agenda Item 11)14
175) The Committee recalled that at its 25th Session it had agreed that there was a need for inclusion of a specific method for determination of the water content in the whole fish for salted and dried salted fish covered by Codex STAN 167-1989 and that a new procedure for the preparation of sample in the current method was proposed.
176) The Delegation of Norway suggested to make small amendments in Section 7.4 Determination of Water Content and pointed out that the proposed amendments provided a more standardized methodology that would be easier to use.
177) The Committee noted the proposals of the Delegation of Denmark and agreed to clarify in the first and second sentences of the first paragraph of Section 7 that fish must be placed in store at a temperature of +1° - +4° C and that the analysis must be performed as soon as possible after the fish has been sampled.
178) The Committee deleted the second and fourth paragraphs of this section as these dealt with problems that were outside the scope of the method.
179) The Committee changed the title of Section 6 to read “Control analysis of whole fish”.
180) Replying to the question of the Delegation of Canada regarding the presence of skin and bones in the sample, the Delegation of Norway clarified that bones were considered to be part of samples.
181) The Delegation of Canada informed the Committee that an AOAC Method 937.07 existed for the determination of water in fish, which was very similar to the one under the discussion and that consideration should be given as to whether it could be proposed as an alternative.
182) The Committee noted the proposal of the Delegation of Portugal that there was a need for in depth collaboration on this issue and agreed that the Delegation of Norway in cooperation with Portugal and Canada would prepare a paper outlining problems that might arise in this regard.
183) The Committee agreed to forward the proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Salted Fish and Dried Salted Fish to the 27th Session of the Commission for adoption at Step 5 (see Appendix VI).
DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL SPECIES IN CODEX STANDARDS ON FISH AND FISHERY PRODUCTS (Agenda Item 12)15
184) The Committee recalled that its last session had considered a discussion paper prepared by the Delegation of France that analysed the current provisions concerning the inclusion of species and related labelling requirements, and proposed several options concerning their revision. The Committee had agreed that the paper should be revised to concentrate on the possible revision of the current procedure for the inclusion of species.
185) The Delegation of France, while introducing the document, recalled the status and purpose of the procedure and pointed out that the current criteria were not discriminating enough. The Delegation recalled that standards had been grouped and simplified when revised and that the essential quality factors did not include detailed provisions allowing to characterize the species or group of species concerned. This resulted in potential confusion for the consumer, especially as the same product, such as Sprattus sprattus and Clupea harengus could be covered by different standards, such as Salted Atlantic Herring and Salted Sprat and Canned Sardines, according to their mode of presentation. The Delegation therefore proposed to revise the following criteria: taxonomic and species authentication information; biological and economical information; technological information; sensory evaluation; and to add a new step related to the “risk of confusion”.
186) The Committee expressed its appreciation to the Delegation of France for this comprehensive paper that would allow further consideration of these complex issues. Several delegations expressed support for further work on the revision of the procedure in order to take into account new technologies and methods of analysis as well as the evolution of the market. The Committee agreed that the next stage was to identify how the current procedure should be actually amended in order to decide on specific new work at the next session.
187) The Representative of FAO presented to the Committee an advance copy of a FAO Fisheries Technical Paper entitled « Application of modern analytical techniques to ensure seafood safety and authenticity » (Iciar Martinez et al.); this document provides an overview of analytical techniques available on one hand for detection and characterization of pathogenic organisms in seafood products, on the other hand for fish species authentication and in some case determination of origin. Besides, FAO compiled common names of 1462 marine species used in member countries (Excel file provided on CD-ROM). FAO proposed to continue this work and called upon collaboration of member countries for completing and correcting the list. Moreover, it would be worth enriching this list with scientific data based upon analytical results of electrophoresis or DNA sequencing of authentic samples; this implies cooperation of scientific institutions. From the FAO point of view, such a list of common names could be useful for preparing and implementing a new inclusion procedure and, more generally, for further work on species identification and for preparation or revision of Codex standards.
188) The Committee invited the Delegation of France, with the assistance of FAO and interested countries (Germany, Morocco, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom), to prepare an outline of a proposed draft amendment to the current procedure for consideration at the next session.
DISCUSSION PAPER ON FISH CONTENT IN FISH STICKS (Agenda Item 13)16
189) The Committee recalled that the 29th Session of the Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) had agreed in principle on a declaration of fish content in fish sticks (Draft Amendment to the Standard for Quick Frozen Fish Sticks) and asked the CCFFP to define fish content and the corresponding methodology. The Committee had considered this question at its earlier sessions and had agreed at the last session that the Delegation of the United Kingdom should revise the discussion paper on the definition and method for fish content.
190) The Delegation of the United Kingdom presented the discussion paper that outlined its national experience with the use of chemical analysis to determine fish content. The document included the position of Canada and the United States that had also participated in the drafting and proposed some options for consideration by the Committee in order to reply to the question of the CCFL.
191) As regards the relationship between the declaration of fish content and the current work of the Committee on Food Labelling on quantitative declaration of ingredient (QUID), the Secretariat indicated that the CCFL had agreed on the specific Draft Amendment currently at Step 7 as it was consistent with the provisions of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (Section 5.1.1). The amendment to the Standard to include QUID declaration was still under discussion at Step 3.
192) The Delegations of New Zealand and South Africa expressed their concern with the use of proposed method as some species had a naturally low protein content and the nitrogen conversion factors were not defined for all species that were used in fish sticks. It would be necessary to establish a database on the nitrogen content of all relevant species, otherwise the results of the methods could create problems in trade. The Delegation of the United Kingdom however pointed out that since the factors are used as trigger levels for further investigation, it may be possible to use a single factor as there are only small differences between the factors of the different white fish species.
193) After some further discussion, the Committee agreed that the amendment to CODEX STAN 166-1989 should read as follows:
6.1.3 “The proportion of fish content should be declared on the label”
194) In reply to a question from the Delegation of France, the Delegation of the United Kingdom clarified that the proportion of fish was expressed as the ingoing percentage of fish at the time of manufacture.
195) The Committee agreed to recommend that AOAC Method 996.15 be used as the routine method to check fish content. The method of analysis as outlined in CX/FFP 02/13 could also be used in cases where this method is applicable to the species to be examined.
196) The Committee agreed to submit the proposed text of section 6.1.3 and the corresponding method of analysis (section 7.4) to the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling for endorsement of the methods and to the Committee on Food Labelling in order to allow the finalization of the draft amendment (see Appendix VII) .
OTHER BUSINESS, FUTURE WORK AND THE DATE AND PLACE OF NEXT SESSION
(Agenda Item 14)17
197) The delegation of Spain expressed its reservation as the Spanish version of the report was not available to delegates.
198) The Delegation of Morocco referring to its written comments drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that essential problems related to labelling in the application of the Codex Standard for Canned Sardines were not solved and this created confusion for consumers as different species may be labelled in the same way.
199) The Committee agreed that the Delegation of Morocco would prepare a discussion paper outlining their proposals for amendment to the Standard for consideration at the next session of the Committee.
200) The Delegation of South Africa informed the Committee that the Government of South Africa was willing to co-host the 27th Session of the Committee in Cape Town, South Africa from 28 February to 4 March 2005, subject to further discussions and confirmation by the host Governments and the Codex Secretariat.
SUMMARY STATUS OF WORK
Subject Matter |
Step |
Action by |
Document Reference in ALINORM 04/27/18 |
Draft Standard for Salted Atlantic Herring and Salted Sprat |
8 |
Governments
|
para. 54
|
Draft Model Certificate for Fish and Fishery Products (sanitary certificate) |
8 |
Governments
|
para. 68
|
Draft Amendment to the Standard for Quick Frozen Lobsters |
8 |
Governments
|
para. 74
|
Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (aquaculture and quick frozen coated fish products) |
5/8 |
Governments
|
para. 113
|
Draft Amendment to the Standard for Quick Frozen Fish Sticks |
718 |
CCFL/CCMAS
|
para. 196
|
Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Salted Fish and Dried Salted Fish |
5 |
Governments
|
para. 183
|
Proposed Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Scallop Adductor Muscle Meat |
4 |
27th CCFFP |
para. 145 |
Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (other sections) |
3 |
Governments
|
para. 114
|
Proposed Draft Standard for Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs |
3 |
Governments
|
para. 132
|
Proposed Draft Standard for Granular Sturgeon Caviar |
3 |
Governments/Russia
|
para. 174
|
Proposed Draft Standard for Smoked Fish |
3 |
Governments/Denmark
|
para. 152
|
Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Canned Sardines and Sardine-Type Products (Clupea bentincki) |
CCEXEC
|
para. 7 | |
Proposed Draft Model Certificate for Fish and Fishery Products (other certificates) |
CCEXEC
|
para. 70 | |
Other questions (discussion papers): |
|||
Revision of the Procedure for the Inclusion of Species |
France/Governments
|
para. 136 | |
Amendment of the Standard for Canned Sardines and Sardine-Type Products |
Morocco
|
para. 199 | |
1 CX/FFP 03/1.
2 Canada, European Community, Germany, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, United Kingdom and the United States of America.
3 Canada, European Community, Japan, Norway, Malaysia, Thailand, United Kingdom, and the United States of America.
4 CX/FFP 03/2; CX/FFP 03/2-Add.1; CX/FFP 03/2-Add.2; CX/FH 03/5-Add.3 (Discussion Paper on Risk Management Strategies for Vibrio spp. in Seafood); CRD 5 (comments of Brazil).
5 ALINORM 03/18, Appendix IV; CX/FFP 03/3 (comments of Brazil, Iran); CX/FFP 03/3-Add.1 (comments of Canada, Israel, United States); CX/FFP 03/3-Add.2 (Risk Profile Clostridium botulinum in Salted Atlantic Herring and Sprat); CRD 5 (comments of Brazil); CRD 7 (comments of Norway); CRD 9 (comments of Denmark).
6 ALINORM 03/18 - Appendix V, CL 2003/30-FFP, CX/FFP 03/4 (comments of Cote d’Ivoire, United States), CRD 1 (comments of Canada) , CRD 3 (comments of Australia), CRD 4 (comments of the EC), CRD 9 (comments of Denmark)
7 ALINORM 03/18 - Appendix X, CX/FFP 03/5 (comments of Canada, United States), CX/FFP 03/5-Add.1 (United States: additional comments), CRD 3 (comments of Australia), CRD 4 (EC), CRD 5 (Brazil)
8 ALINORM 03/18, Appendix VI, CL 2003/30-FFP, CX/FFP 03/6 (comments of El Salvador).
9 CL 2003/6-FFP, CX/FFP 03/7 (comments of Canada, Finland, Germany, Poland), CX/FFP 03/7-Add.1 (comments of United Kingdom, United States), CX/FFP 03/7-Add.2 (United States, EC); CRD 3 (Australia), CRD 5 (Brazil), CRD 6 (Report of the Working Group), CRD 9 (Denmark), CRD 8 (additional comments of the United States).
10 ALINORM 03/18, Appendix VII; CX/FFP 03/8 (comments of Canada, New Zealand and the United States); CX/FFP 03/8-Add.1 (comments of Chili, and Israel); CRD 3 (comments of Australia); CRD 2 (comments of European Community) and CRD 9 (comments of Denmark).
11 ALINORM 03/18 Appendix VIII; CX/FFP 03/9 (comments of Chile, Jordan and United States); CX/FFP 03/9-Add.1 (Discussion Paper on the Moisture Content and Phosphates in Scallops); CRD 3 (comments of Australia).
12 CX/FFP 03/10 –Add.2 (Document on the control of Clostridium botulinum prepared by the US); CRD 10 (Proposed Draft Standard for Smoked Fish).
13 CX/FFP 03/11, CX/FFP 03/11-Add.1 (comments of France, Israel, Switzerland, United States, EC), CRD 9 (comments of Denmark)
14 ALINORM 03/18 Appendix IX; CRD 7 (comments of Norway); CRD 9 (comments of Denmark).
15 CX/FFP 03/13, CX/FFP 03/13-Add.1 (Technical paper prepared by FAO)
16 CX/FFP 03/14, CRD 3 (comments of Australia)
17 CX/FFP 03/15 (document prepared by Morocco).
18 At Step 7 in the Committee on Food Labelling