TRACEABILITY
110. The Delegation of Japan introduced a brief paper on the matter of traceability[30] in which it noted that this issue had been referred to, or was currently being discussed by various Codex Committees including CCFICS, Committee on Fish and Fishery Products, Task Force on Animal Feeding, and the Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. It stated that the concept of traceability cut across a wide range of food issues. It further noted that, as yet, there had not been a forum under the Codex Alimentarius Commission in which a comprehensive discussion had taken place on the issue and that Codex had not yet defined the purpose and framework of this concept. The Delegation was of the opinion that due to the importance of this concept in relation to food import and export inspection and certification systems it would be an appropriate matter for the Committee to discuss. The Committee expressed its appreciation to the Delegation of Japan for raising the issue and agreed that the points raised needed to be addressed within the Codex framework.
111. At the request of the Chairperson, the Secretariat noted that different Codex Committees and Task Forces had undertaken either prior or current work related to traceability including the Committees on Food Hygiene, Food Labelling, and Food Additives and Contaminants in addition to the subsidiary bodies mentioned by Japan. The Secretariat noted that the modalities required for systems of traceability seemed to fall within the terms of reference of CCFICS whereas consideration of a Codex-wide definition of the concept would logically fall within the work of the Committee on General Principles.
112. The Representative of the European Commission stated that traceability was an instrument of risk management and as such should be considered by the Committee on General Principles. Moreover, in the opinion of the Representative, the issue was not exclusively related to food safety. For example in the area of organic foods or food claimed to be “GMO-free” it was a matter of ensuring the integrity of the product in relation to consumer confidence. Because it was such a general concept, the Representative recommended that the Committee on General Principles should establish a definition and establish general orientations.
113. The Delegation of Canada, supported by several other delegations, stated that there was a need for a general discussion paper on the status and use of the concept in which the problems, challenges and opportunities to Codex would be highlighted. The Delegation of the Republic of Korea stated that this was an important issue for food safety systems involved in international trade. The Representative of the International Association of Consumer Food Organizations proposed that consideration could be given to a “bottom up” approach, allowing a more general definition to be derived from the practical application of the concept by individual committees within their terms of reference. The Delegation of the United States was of the opinion that emphasis should be placed on the purpose and application of the concept rather than a definition. The Delegation of New Zealand was of the opinion that contemporary experience in the use of the concept at the national level should be identified and examples included in any discussion paper.
114. The Committee agreed that within its Terms of Reference it had a responsibility to consider work in this area and that there was need for a substantive discussion of the issue at its next meeting. In view of the system-wide interest and involvement in the issue, the Committee recommended that a short paper be prepared by the Secretariat for consideration by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its next Session in order to obtain the Commission’s guidance in this matter. In the meantime, the other relevant Committees and Task Forces, including the Committee on General Principles, would be informed of this recommendation.
