COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT CODEX MAXIMUM LEVEL AND SAMPLING PLANS FOR TOTAL AFLATOXINS IN PEANUTS INTENDED FOR FURTHER PROCESSING (Agenda Item 12a)
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT MAXIMUM LEVEL FOR AFLATOXIN M1 IN MILK (Agenda Item 12b)
POSITION PAPER ON OCHRATOXIN A (Agenda Item 12 c)
POSITION PAPER ON PATULIN (Agenda item 12d)
POSITION PAPER ON ZEARALENONE (Agenda item 12 e)
DRAFT CODE OF PRACTICE ON GOOD ANIMAL FEEDING (Agenda item 12f)
64. The 29th CCFAC decided to maintain the draft level and sampling plan at Step 7 (ALINORM 97/12, Appendix VIII) and, pending the JECFA evaluation of aflatoxins, to collect more information on the potential economic problems from a level of 10 µg/kg and the public health implication of a level of 15, as compared to 10 µg/kg (ALINORM 97/12A, para 58).
65. The Committee noted that the 49th JECFA completed an extensive quantitative risk assessment for aflatoxins (see paras. 14-15).
66. Many delegations considered the draft level of 15 µg/kg total aflatoxins in raw peanuts sufficiently low as it applied to peanuts intended for further processing. They stated that 15 µg/kg was the lowest level that could be reasonably achieved during the production of raw peanuts and that it would facilitate international trade. A lower level was considered as a trade barrier because on the basis of the JECFA evaluation this may not offer significant improvements for public health. It was also noted that the level could be reasonably achieved by peanut producing countries.
67. Other delegations preferred 10 µg/kg and referred to the genotoxic properties of aflatoxins, uncertainties in risk assessment, the ALARA principle and the lack of data provided to show that this level would influence the availability of peanuts on the market.
68. The Committee recognised that a strong relationship existed between an aflatoxin level and an applied sampling plan.
69. A number of proposals were put forward by delegations in an attempt to reach consensus. These included a proposal for the establishment of a working group to seek a consensus on the draft maximum level and the sampling plans in the light of the final JECFA report and also a proposal that the limit of 15 µg/kg be advanced to Step 8 but the sampling plans be returned to Step 6 to enable a working group to be established to work on them for the 31st CCFAC. No consensus could be reached on these proposals.
70. The delegation of Zimbabwe requested that the Committee vote on the proposal to advance the maximum level of 15 µg/kg and the sampling plans to the Commission for adoption at Step 8. The delegation of Switzerland asked Zimbabwe to reconsider its call for a vote to enable the Committee to consider a new proposal that the maximum level and sampling plans be placed in square brackets and advanced to the Commission at Step 8. Following clarification from the Secretariat concerning the significance of square brackets, the delegation of Zimbabwe withdrew its request for a vote.
71. Despite certain reservations, the Committee accepted the proposal to forward the draft maximum level of 15µg/kg and sampling plans between square brackets to the Commission for adoption at Step 8 (see Appendix X). The Committee was further advised that the square brackets would be removed prior to final adoption at the Commission. Quantitative data supporting a lower level or alternative sampling plans should be submitted to the Commission.
72. It was also noted that in the future, and in compliance with the principles of the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods, maximum levels for aflatoxins should be considered in the context of a quantitative risk assessment which took account of all foodborne sources.
73. The 29th CCFAC agreed to maintain the current level (0.05 mg/kg) at Step 7 and to collect more information (CL 1997/6 - FAC) on the public health implications of a higher level and the potential economic problems from the lower level as proposed (ALINORM 97/12A, para 55).
74. Many delegations supported the proposed value of 0.05 mg/kg, advocating that this level could reasonably be achieved. Other delegations drew attention to the summary report of the 49th JECFA meeting and stated that a ten fold higher level was adequate to protect public safety. The difficulties and costs associated with the use of methods of analysis for the determination of aflatoxins at the lower level were also noted. Some delegations stated that a level of 0.05 mg/kg would result in severe disruptions to international feed trade. Some delegations were of the opinion that milk for direct consumption was not widely traded internationally.
75. The delegations of Argentina, Brazil, the Philippines and the United States reserved their position and preferred a level of 0.5 mg/kg. The Committee accepted the proposal to forward the draft maximum level of 0.05 mg/kg for Aflatoxin M1 in Milk to the Commission for adoption at Step 8 (see Appendix X).
76. The 29th CCFAC accepted the offer of Sweden to revise the position paper on Ochratoxin A based on the Committee’s discussions and to include a proposed level for further consideration at its current meeting (ALINORM 97/12A, para. 66).
77. The delegation of Sweden briefly introduced the revised position paper. Special attention was focused on the fact that a number of Aspergillus-species were able to produce Ochratoxin A. Possible genotoxic carcinogenic and nephrotoxic properties were mentioned. Dietary exposure from sources other than cereals (e.g., wine, fruit juices, pig meat and coffee) was also highlighted.
Sweden recommended that:
78. Many delegates appreciated the work done by Sweden and agreed that standards for commodities other than cereals needed to be considered. The use of the horizontal approach of the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods was supported for this purpose.
79. Several delegates referred to JECFA’s most recent toxicological evaluation, and stated that JECFA needed to clarify its position on the carcinogenicity of Ochratoxin A, and noted that an updated risk assessment may be necessary in the future.
80. The Committee considered that it would be premature to set a level for cereals at this time and accepted the offer of Sweden to prepare an updated version of the position paper for circulation, comment and discussion at its next meeting.
81. The 29th CCFAC decided to request that additional information on Patulin be submitted to France (CL 1997/6-FAC) and accepted their offer to update the position paper based on these comments for circulation before the current meeting (ALINORM 97/12A, para. 77).
82. France noted modifications made to the earlier version of the position paper, particularly the potential to reduce patulin levels through physical, chemical and mechanical means. The paper also focused special attention on the higher risk for children who could consume large amounts of apple juice. Many delegates welcomed the clear overview given in the paper and the recommendations proposed.
83. Levels of both 25 and 50 µg/kg were discussed in relation to:
84. The Committee decided to append a maximum level of 50 µg/kg for apple juice and the apple juice ingredient in ready made soft drinks for circulation and comment at Step 3 (see Appendix XI). The Committee noted that for products containing apple juice the maximum level should be reduced proportionally to reflect the percentage of juice present in the product when consumed.
85. The Committee accepted the offer of France to produce an updated version of the paper for further discussion at its next meeting.
86. The delegation of Norway introduced the position paper on Zearalenone that was prepared in close cooperation with other Nordic countries at the request of the 29th CCFAC (ALINORM 97/12A, para. 52).
87. Several delegates expressed their appreciation for the preparation of the document. The need for establishing a maximum level was questioned, as the position paper indicated that no problems in international trade had been reported.
88. The Committee decided to circulate the current position paper for comment and consideration at its next meeting.
89. The 22nd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission noted the outcome of the FAO Consultation on Animal Feeding and Food Safety, and agreed that the Draft Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding should be referred to the CCFAC and other Codex Committees (ALINORM 97/37, para. 129). The Draft Code of Practice was also discussed at the 30th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (ALINORM 99/13, paras. 96-99).
90. The Committee decided to forward the following comments of delegations for further consideration by the Executive Committee:
91. The Committee noted that the Codex Code of Practice for the Reduction of Aflatoxins in Raw Materials and Supplementary Feeding Stuffs for Milk producing Animals addressed many of the issues in the Consultation report, and agreed to elaborate additional codes of practice related to specific commodities in the future if necessary. It was also noted that the CCFAC could elaborate maximum levels for animal feedingstuffs or their raw materials where necessary due to problems in trade.
