13. The document was prepared by Australia on the basis of discussions held at the 43rd Session of the Executive Committee[7]. Since the Executive Committee Session, the 10th Session of the CCRVDF and the 5th Session of the CCFICS had examined an original and a revised document respectively and decided not to pursue the recommendations further[8].
14. The Delegation of Australia stated that the paper explored various options for further facilitating international trade by elaborating appropriate guidelines which, while not compromising the level of public health protection, could be applied in situations when either Codex MRLs were non existent or importing countries apply default tolerances (frequently zero or near to zero) which were not science-based.
15. Several delegations expressed serious concerns as to the general direction of the document. It was suggested that those issues raised in the document, which concentrated on bilateral arrangements between countries, were outside the mandate of Codex. Moreover, the proposals seemed to transfer the burden of proof of the safety of food from the producer and exporter to the importer, and would undermine the role of Codex in developing comprehensive MRLs to protect the consumer and to facilitate trade.
16. The Committee agreed not to pursue the elaboration of harmonized guidelines for the establishment of temporary tolerances at the national level, or any of the other recommendations or proposals contained in the document.
