- Maximum Residue Limits of Pesticides in Fish
5. The Committee recalled that the 21st Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission had referred to it a proposal to elaborate MRLs in fish. The Committee at its last Session had discussed this proposal briefly and agreed to send a circular letter[3] requesting information on the need for MRLs in fish.
6. The establishment of MRLs for chemicals used as pesticides in feed or aquaculture, and EMRLs for chemicals previously registered as pesticides is the responsibility of this Committee, while that for MRLs for chemicals used as veterinary drugs in aquaculture is the responsibility of the CCRVDF.
7. Several delegations and WHO reported that surveys demonstrated that the estimated intakes of pesticide residues, especially certain organochlorine compounds, were low. Some delegations expressed the view that there might be a need to elaborate EMRLs for persistent organochlorine compounds in fish in the future; however, the limited data availability was pointed out. The Committee agreed that at present there was no need to establish MRLs/EMRLs for fish as there were neither significant problems in trade of fish nor apparent health concerns arising from uses of pesticides in aquaculture, or from environmental contamination. The Committee also agreed that it might consider this issue in the future.
- Pesticide Residue Provision of the Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Processed Cereal-Based Foods for Infants and Young Children
8. The Committee noted that a proposal was made at the 20th Session of the CCNFSDU to include specific requirements for pesticide residues in the above standard[4]. The Committee decided to request the CCNFSDU to clarify their concerns and to provide the exact wording it wished to include in the standard for consideration by this Committee.
- Maximum Residue Limits for Veterinary Drugs
9. The Committee noted that the CCRVDF at its Tenth Session advanced a number of MRLs for abamectin, cypermethrin and a-cypermethrin in animal products to Step 5[5].
10. It was pointed out that the way in which the CCRVDF established MRLs included some differences compared with the CCPR, e.g., fat solubility of compounds was not taken into consideration; and the tissue “muscle” was not defined in relation to fat. The separate residue definitions for cypermethrin and a-cypermethrin, as opposed to the consolidated definition for cypermethrin (sum of isomers) agreed by the CCPR, would not be practical in control laboratories.
11. It was recognized that further coordination would be needed between the JMPR and JECFA, and the CCPR and CCRVDF, as well as at the national level, for elaborating MRLs for compounds used both as pesticides and veterinary drugs. It was stressed that general information exchange between the JMPR and JECFA was necessary, e.g., when one body reviews a compound, another body's evaluation, where available, should be included in the data package.
12. The Chairperson offered to suggest better coordination between the JECFA and JMPR, including possible informal joint meeting, when reporting on CCPR activities at the forthcoming Commission Session. The Committee encouraged Member countries to comment on the above MRLs at Step 5.
