156. The 32nd CCFAC agreed to return the draft Maximum Levels for lead in fish, crustaceans, molluscs and fruit juices to Step 6 for additional comment and further consideration at its next session.[69]
157. The delegation of the Philippines informed the Committee that following the request of the 32nd CCFAC, relevant data had been collected in the Philippines and other ASEAN countries and were in the process of being analyzed for submission to the next session of the Committee. The Philippines also noted that AOAC Method 972.23 for lead in fish was not adequately sensitive to measure lead at the level proposed.
158. Several delegations expressed the view that the level for fish needed to be held at Step 6 because of an insufficient database on monitoring and the lack of official validated analytical methods having a limit of detection at the proposed level. Other delegations noted that the level of 0.2 mg/kg was adequate for certain species of fish but that other species required a higher level of 0.4 or 0.5 mg/kg and in this regard, several delegations noted that individual levels might be decided for specific species or classes of fish. The delegation of Peru requested that the limits should refer to species and their geographic distribution.
159. The Delegation of India expressed the view that there was no need for a maximum level of 0.5 mg/kg in the Codex Standard for Butter as the contribution to total dietary intake was not significant. The Committee agreed that comments would be requested on the necessity of a maximum level for lead in butter.
160. The Committee also confirmed that there was no need for a maximum level for lead in sugar because the contribution to total dietary intake was not significant.
161. The Delegation of Switzerland, speaking on behalf of the Swiss Secretariat to the CCCPC/CCSB, requested clarification on CCFAC principles involved concerning the endorsement of contaminant levels in Commodity Standards. The Secretariat explained that there was no change in the CCFAC endorsement procedures in that the CCFAC had the responsibility to endorse and/or establish maximum or guideline levels for contaminants. The Committee noted that governments provided information on exposure assessment to the commodity committees and the CCFAC to justify the various levels proposed and that in those cases where an actual exposure assessment was required, this task was undertaken by JECFA.
Status of the Draft Maximum Levels for Lead
162. The Committee decided to return the draft Maximum Levels for Lead in fish, crustaceans and bivalve molluscs for additional comments at Step 6 (see Appendix XIV) and agreed that the levels would be incorporated into Schedule 1 of the GSCT (see Agenda Item 13c). The Committee agreed that comments would be requested on lead levels in specific subspecies of fish by Latin name and/or by habitat or behavior and that Denmark would make a compilation of the data forwarded on fish. It was also agreed that information would be requested from FAO and WHO in this regard.
163. The Committee agreed to forward the draft Maximum Level for Lead in fruit juices, with a footnote indicating that the level applied to “ready to drink” product, to the Commission for adoption at Step 8 (see Appendix XIV).
