42. The Committee noted that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues had been considering the pesticide residue problems in developing countries and had been and were collecting information through questionnaires[18] with a view to identifying pesticide/commodity combinations for which Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) should be elaborated.
43. The Delegations of Thailand, Japan and China reported their situations of pesticide registration and MRL setting. The Delegation of Japan reported that 66% of 1400 Japanese MRLs were the same as Codex MRLs set for the same pesticide/commodity combinations.
44. The Observer from Australia stated that a major concern to food exporting countries was the arbitrary application of very low or zero tolerances for chemical residues without sound scientific justification. Recognizing the difficulties for some countries to conduct proper risk assessments, Australia saw a need for more appropriate risk management approaches by exporting and importing countries jointly. A key feature of this framework could be wide consensus about the approach which individual countries should follow when there had not been MRLs set for a certain substances. In such a situation, the agreed process could be: the application of the Codex MRL; or where no Codex MRL, application of the MRL of the exporting country or that of an agreed third country provided an MRL had been established using sound science.
45. The Observer from Consumer International emphasized concerns of the consumer, especially those on residues of banned or prohibited pesticides in foods, and stated that although most countries in the region had adopted integrated pest management programmes to minimize pesticide use, these programmes should become the mainstay of good agricultural practice. Consumer International emphasized that the SPS Agreement recognized the right of countries to set stricter MRLs and this right must be respected.
